









... V*^‘ / °o y *f*' / V*^V 

- ^ . .V .r* c *\ av ♦ ** V * 1°* O. 

Safe* . a 4Va'" V c-v ♦ySj&f. .❖ ,>Va> ^ 
»: v^r ;^M?°, '**<? \ MPm - %<* 




> y 


o * A 


» *. 

* <y * 



* « 5 ^ ^ '--vffiEar.- t- 

•A 0 ^ *■' .. *' A <. 

CT • *—-*♦-^o, ,4.^ .•'JJ» ^ ,i 

° ,>i * Ws?^" V C • 

Pv- 


* <£> • 
- 4 <b * 

O * > * - 0 > l 2 > 


«**-. > 4? * v % V% ' *o*,.jv-,% 

£?Ob‘'o ^ _,^ *fSK 9 *. V£- .*** >»^. <?„ ^ *.«Sh 2 V- ' 


\ \** : 
• ^ • 


*«** A <V <. '».«* ’JTTT* A <. »..?* .0 


..,%/•-** ^ %*-•.’*’ ^0° °0 ‘ 
atov* «, v A *? ♦^a£r* ^ ^v v **••* % 

»: W %/ :Mk\ X<&* :Mb\ 


w 


JP?* : /% ^SSlI^ /\ /\ Z MX: 

$° ;, ^^®* : ^ : '^B§*** Vov ^ *1 


v*V 


^ *•»**• A 0 ^ ♦•«o° O. ♦TTn** aO ^ 

!*•- cx 4 p P %*Vf # V .»*o^ ^ •*** ^ 

l^'° ^ * *^8ES> *. 

^ v ^. »WlfP* .v> ^ «#. 


•^5 


[C 


X.. # 


| 5 f/ ^ V \ *.^** /\ « 




❖ v *v 





; / . 

' ^ ,. °% ‘ * - • ’ J>' % ^ <b 

v ♦! .?<• cv A o” ^ *y 

yd. a^ ♦iC(\%^/0i! 0 ^ ^ .^> ^ a* < 

4 4 jL^ ^ ** 'Oa. • 

* * 'A&kS*'' * -V' •*• V 

“ n * ^ •« * ^ .-«■■ * 

• HQ, 


• A 





>* i 0 ’^. -1 

► ft T A # 


'£». Jy A *^ 



\0 ^j>» ^ ^ • A 

*©,0°^ 

x<* >A ♦ iS>« <i* + 

\r -JpHv ^ - 



* 5 ?^ x ^ v ^ ^ ^ 

# ** ^ « * * aCT 

ly- « kl * A ^J. iftV a * • 

I*'fflflfoz? - ~%r. 0 


’» jP^ ’- 

"V A ft A 1 

°* **<’* A 0 ^ 

* *+** " 

^ m> *rs <h?\ \wm: 

v^V 

1^1* °o .,# . 



<► '••.l** .< 

• l “* ^ .0^ 


o 








v* o v 


3 

a 


\r V^*> V- 

V ***** C\ *$T v »V % *> t> 

> »^d\WA*o *Cn A?^ .«&, A. * . f?. 55 . <■ b. 


• w 



^ * 

© 

» 
o 

_> -*r ° 

AV O. «* *\ 

,0 0 *J* ♦ ^b *$> ^4i 

, ^ o S» SjbM&L* ^ 

u rv> ^ 4^ 


*W* 

* «?* 'V -. 


o V 



«» *+ vHffi^sr* 0 ^ VkzSfSr* v' r ± .«? 

, .„ °V*""‘ , 0 ^ 0 .... V'^*' ^ 0° \. '-. 

I& 0 . /afe'. '^Vai ^ .* .‘^sitef. ># 




,/„/% ’®* /% •. 

**■ # v ,.-*.%'° ,l< </.•*•.’V'"' 


® •» 





* A° 

* *, 0° .• 

* ^<j» 3 

• A 0 * •* 


^JU <**VU\\\Si> * K> — «. <-sy//mjf ■* V ^ ^Ht \VNSN. k .V- «*> .V 

.. ^ * * " ° ■s? ’■’ A 0 V. ••„•• ,<5> O « 

®»‘- W .i«M*. -V .-tSK-. „« v .sivi. % 


C$ vP 

vP ^ 


***« 


w* ^ , ** v \ <&''% 'JQK* «; 

/.^>o J^\^\ /\ t - 


*$* A' 
V<S v 


5 'Cfa 


t. r\^ 




i° A 


*?& 


v*^v v^*y v*^v v 

* *.V1\ > <S^ V A a0 v ** V'O* 




*>% • 


► *• V.^ ^ ^°* A a° y ^ * .<> O *«>.** 

.<d ^ i(*v7/%*> * pjr V • j-CVwanftt^- O O 17 * 71, G * 

’"%.. **\§§p' , ° ^ 0 ' 4> ^ ''*zmr*' „ 4,0 "% - 


o 


^ ^ O «0 0 ^ % 4 '*,n** ^0 ** 


* /• S vP. 

4 # 


• *** : MB3&- ^ 

• ^ v \ /'V 

a 


«i. < 

^ ♦'^4 . 



o 

•* 0>-V * 

1T* a o ' 

.-jr »• ‘■ 5 !- ■* 

















LECTURES 

ON THE 

CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION 

OF 

THE BIBLE, 

WITH 

TWO PRELIMINARY LECTURES 

ON 

THEOLOGICAL STUDY 

AND 

THEOLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT. 


A NEW EDITION, REVISED AND CORRECTED. 


TO WHICH ARE NOW ADDED, 

TWO LECTURES 

tf)e distort) of IStfcltcal interpretation. 

by 

HERBERT MARSH, D.D. F.R.S. & F.S.A. 

lady Margaret’s professor of divinity in the 

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, 

AND BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH. 


CAMBRIDGE: 


Printed by J. Smith, Printer to the University; 

FOR C. & J. RIVINGTON, 

WATERLOO-PLACE AND ST. PAUL’S CHURCH-YARD, LONDON; 
AND SOLD BY J. & J. J. DEIGHTON, CAMBRIDGE. 








I 


$ 


{ 




\ 


> f* • * 

• I I 



0 


f 




y 


« 







• i 





PREFACE. 


Six years have elapsed since my Publisher 
informed me, that the three first Parts of my 
Theological Lectures, which had then passed 
through two editions, were out of print, and that 
a new edition was wanted. Having made various 
remarks in my own interleaved copy, I was 
unwilling to publish a new edition of those 
Lectures, without a complete revision of them, 
especially as they relate to the Criticism and 
Interpretation of the Bible, and thus embrace 
a variety of subjects, which require minute atten¬ 
tion. For this revision I had not then suffi¬ 
cient leisure. In addition to numerous Diocesan 
duties, I was then engaged with a Course of 
Lectures on the Authenticity and Credibility 
of the Bible, which constitute the fifth, sixth, 
and seventh Parts of the Lectures. In 1823 
I received Letters from various quarters, re¬ 
questing that I would publish a new edition of 
the four first Parts. Indeed the three first 
Parts would be imperfect without the fourth 
a 2 


iv PREFACE. 

Part, which is not only a continuation, but an 
important continuation, of the third Part. It 
relates to the Interpretation of Prophecy, and 
lays the foundation of the argument, which is 
built on Prophecy, for the divine origin of 
Christianity. 

I determined therefore to prepare, as soon as 
I should have leisure for the purpose, a new 
edition of the four first Parts. These four Parts 1 
contained twenty-two Lectures, of which the first 
related to Theological Study, the second to 
Theological Arrangement, the ten following Lec¬ 
tures to the Criticism of the Bible, and the last 
ten to the Interpretation of the Bible. For the 
sake of perspicuity I determined therefore to 
arrange those Lectures under their respective 
titles, and to publish them as Lectures on the 
Criticism and the Interpretation of the Bible, 
with two Preliminary Lectures on Theological 
Study, and Theological Arrangement. Such was 
the plan which I formed between four and five 
years ago. But various causes, of which sick¬ 
ness was not the least considerable, prevented 


1 The term Part corresponded to the term Fasciculus, and 
expressed the portion of Lectures published at the same time. 




PREFACE. 


V 


me from undertaking the proposed revision before 
the autumn of 1825. During my residence at 
Cambridge in February and March 1826, the 
Lectures, so revised, were re-printed. But here 
a fresh obstacle arose, which retarded the pub¬ 
lication. According to the plan, proposed in the 
first Preliminary Lecture, and observed in the 
Lectures on the Criticism of the Bible, the 
Lectures on the Interpretation of the Bible 
would be incomplete, without a history of bib¬ 
lical interpretation. Now the materials of such 
a history lie scattered, not only in the works of 
the Greek and Latin Fathers, but in the works 
of various authors who lived during the middle 
ages. Such materials I could collect only in 
the University Library. Nor was a limited 
residence at Cambridge in 1827 sufficient for 
the purpose. But I have now completed the 
task to the best of my ability, and submit it 
to the judgement of the public. The reader 
will excuse the apparent egotism of this short 
narrative: for though the private concerns of 
authors are generally interesting only to them¬ 
selves, I have thought it my duty to account 
for the delay which has taken place in the 
publication of the present work. 


VI 


PREFACE. 


Some remarks must now be made on the 
alterations in the Lectures, which had been 
already printed. The exordium of the first Pre¬ 
liminary Lecture, which related only to local 
circumstances, and has now ceased to have any 
interest, is omitted. The exordium of the first 
Lecture on the Criticism of the Bible 2 has 
been likewise omitted; for though it helps to 
explain the theological arrangement described in 
the second Preliminary Lecture, it does not 
properly belong to a Lecture on the Criticism 
of the Bible. The conclusion of the fourth Lec¬ 
ture on the Criticism of the Bible has been 
likewise omitted. It was the conclusion of the 
first Course, and was written chiefly in antici¬ 
pation of what would follow in the next year. 
The first paragraph in the fifth Lecture, which 
has reference to what preceded, is omitted for 
a similar reason. These are the principal omis¬ 
sions. At the beginning of the second Prelimi¬ 
nary Lecture some alterations are made, which 
on consideration seemed to be required. Other 
corrections and various additions are made in 


It appears from what has been already said, that accord¬ 
ing to the former numeration this was the third Lecture. 




PREFACE. 


vii 

the account of the introductory writers, in the 
first Lecture on Criticism : and in the last 
Lecture on that subject is inserted a Note on 
the Hebrew points, in lieu of one that is omitted. 
The minor corrections, which have been made 
in various parts are chiefly such, as suggest 
themselves to authors in general on a revision 
of their works. 

The two additional Lectures have been al¬ 
ready noticed 3 * 5 : but I must likewise account for 
the Appendix. When I was raised to the 
Episcopal Bench in 1816 , I had been long en¬ 
gaged in theological controversy: but I then 
determined to abstain, if possible, from literary 
controversy altogether. By this resolution I 
have hitherto abided, though in the mean time 
I have been subjected to various provocations. 


3 The Lectures, which had been delivered from the Uni¬ 

versity Pulpit did not admit of much minuteness of reference: 

and they were printed as delivered. The tenth Lecture on the 
Criticism of the Bible formed an exception; it was printed but 
not spoken, and in that Lecture the references are minute. 
The two Lectures, which now appear for the first time, having 
been composed only for publication, are accompanied with all 
the necessary vouchers. 



PREFACE. 


viii 

which under other circumstances would not have 
been left unnoticed. But it is now expedient to 
make an exception. A few years ago an attack 
was made on a portion of the second Lecture 
on the Interpretation of the Bible. The attack 
was left unnoticed at the time. But a re-pub- 
lication of these Lectures, after a professed re¬ 
vision, left me no other choice, than either tq 
omit what had been censured, or to defend it. 
I preferred the latter, which I have attempted 
in an Appendix, confined to a single sheet. 
Whether I have successfully repelled the attack, 
is a question which must be left to impartial 
judges. 

Before I conclude let me add a few observa¬ 
tions on the fifth, sixth, and seventh Parts of 
the Lectures, which were delivered several years 
after the four first Parts, and have not been 
re-printed. They relate to the Authenticity and 
Credibility of the Bible, and contain therefore 
the third Branch of Divinity according to the 
arrangement of the second Preliminary Lecture. 
As the proofs, which are there given of Authen¬ 
ticity and Credibility, are a series of propositions, 
in which nothing is assumed, that had not pre- 


PREFACE. 


IX 


viously been proved, the divine origin of Christ¬ 
ianity becomes an easy and obvious deduction. 
For when the prophecies relating literally to 
the person of Jesus Christ, as explained in the 
ninth Lecture on the Interpretation of the Bible, 
are further shewn to have been recorded in a 
work which existed many centuries before the 
birth of the person in whom they were accom¬ 
plished, the influence of an Almighty Being 
who alone could foresee the events predicted, is 
sufficiently apparent. And when it has been 
proved, that the miracles ascribed to our Saviour, 
are recorded in a work, which is both authentic 
and credible, a solid foundation is laid for the 
divine origin of the religion which he taught. 
The proofs therefore of authenticity and credi¬ 
bility bring the Evidences, as they are called, 
within a narrow compass. I have long since 
printed a summary statement of the principal 
evidences for the divine origin of Christianity 4 : 
and if another edition of the Lectures on the 
Authenticity and Credibility of the Bible should 


4 It was printed for the use of the Candidates for Holy 
Orders in the Diocese of Peterborough: but it has not been 
published. 



X 


PREFACE. 


ever be wanted, that summary statement may 
easily be annexed. I shall then have completed 
four out of the seven Branches originally pro¬ 
posed ; and moreover the four, which are the 
most important. More cannot now be expected 
from a writer, who has passed the age of three¬ 
score years and ten. Here then I will take a final 
leave of my readers, and subscribe myself their 
faithful servant, 

Herbert Peterborough. 


Cambridge, 25 March, 1828. 


CONTENTS. 


—-♦- 

Page 

First Preliminary Lecture. 3 

Second Preliminary Lecture . 17 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

Lecture I. 

Introductory Writings, and history of biblical Criticism, in 
the early and middle ages . 41 

Lecture II. 

This History continued and concluded . 64 

Lecture III. 

The Criticism of the Greek Testament in its earliest stages 83 

Lecture IV. 

This subject continued to the formation of the Textus re- 
ceptus . 99 

Lecture V. 

Criticism of the Greek Testament from the formation of 
the Textus receptus to the Edition of Wetslein .. 113 

Lecture VI. 

The same subject continued to the edition of Griesbach . 137 

Lecture VII. 

Description of the Authors who have illustrated the Criticism 
of the Greek Testament according to its several depart¬ 
ments . 1^9 












Xll 


CONTENTS. 


Lecture VIII. 

Criticism of the Hebrew Bible in its earliest stages 


Page 

185 


Lecture IX. 

The same subject continued to Kennicott’s edition . 203 

Lecture X. 

Description of the Authors who have illustrated the Cri¬ 
ticism of the Hebrew Bible according to its several 
departments ... 226 


INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

Lecture I. 

Of the relation, which the Interpretation of the Bible bears 
to the Criticism of the Bible .—Difficulty of biblical inter¬ 
pretation.—Some erroneous notions on this subject cor¬ 
rected .... 265 

Lecture II. 

Of Words, considered as signs to the reader of what was 
thought by the writer .—Degrees of difficulty attending 
the discovery of the notion affixed to any word by the 
writer .—Sources of intelligence, in respect to the words 
of the Hebrew Bible, and the Greek Testament.—Of 
our authorised version ; and the necessity of interpreting 
from the original Scriptures . 285 

Lecture III. 

Rules for the interpretation of Words.—Consequences of 
neglecting them in the interpretation of the Bible.—The 
Interpreter, who explains the Bible by the aid of reason 
and learning, compared with the Interpreter, who aspires 
to the possession of higher means.—Important practical 
difference between the terms “ does not err,” and “ cannot 
err”—-Further remarks on the necessity of theological 
learning, and on the causes of its neglect . 305 









CONTENTS. 


Xlll 


Page 


Lecture IV. 

Of the literal and figurative use of words; and of the 
foundation of this distinction in the origin and formation 
of language.—Consequences of interpreting words literally, 
when they are used figuratively.— Necessity of arranging 
the senses of words in genealogical order .. 323 


Lecture V. 

Relation of Allegory to Metaphor.—Metaphorical interpre¬ 
tation an interpretation of words. —Allegorical interpre¬ 
tation, an interpretation, not of words, but of the things 
signified by the words—Origin of allegorical interpre¬ 
tation among the Greeks —This kind of interpretation 
not warranted by St. Paul . 342 

Lecture VI. 

Adoption and injudicious use of it by the Greek Fathers. 
Abuse of it by unbelievers.—The sense of Scripture ren¬ 
dered by it arbitrary and ambiguous.—Allegorical or 
spiritual interpretation substituted for grammatical in¬ 
terpretation in the twelfth century by the Mystics of the 
Church of Rome, who have been followed in modern 
times .—Typical interpretation warranted by the sacred 
writers .—Definition of a Type; and the consequences 
of neglecting it.—Types and antitypes multiplied by 
various interpreters, without end, and without foundation 361 


Lecture VII. 

Connexion between the interpretation of types, and the in¬ 
terpretation of prophecy. A type is a species of pro¬ 
phecy. Of the difference between real and imaginary 
types. Prophetic character of a real type. The prin¬ 
ciples, here applied to the interpretation of types, illus¬ 
trated by two examples, the one relating to Baptism, 
the other to the Lord’s Supper. Digression on the Sacra¬ 
ment of Baptism as connected with Regeneration, occa¬ 
sioned by the present controversy on that subject. Addi- 




XIV 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

tional remarks on the previous design, which is essential 
to the character of a real type. Revelation alone can 
afford an explanation of types. False reasoning about 
their obscurity. Prophecies delivered by words subject 
to the same difficulties as prophecies delivered by things. 

Of the qualifications necessary for an interpreter of 
Hebrew prophecy .. 380 


Lecture VIII. 

The general principles of interpretation , which were ex¬ 
plained in the five first Lectures, applicable to the inter¬ 
pretation of prophecy. Whether the inspiration of sug¬ 
gestion, which is absolutely necessary in prophecy, 
creates a difference in the principle of interpretation. 

The prophecies relating to the Messiah selected for parti- 
cidar examination, not only on account of their import¬ 
ance, but because they involve almost every question of 
real interest in the subject of prophecy in general. Con¬ 
nection between these prophecies and the truth of our 
religion. Frequent appeals to these prophecies, both 
by Christ, and by his Apostles, as prophecies, which 
testified of Christ, and which were fulfilled in his Divine 
Mission. Prophecies of this description must be pro¬ 
phecies, which relate to the coming of Christ, according 
to their literal and primary sense . 401 

Lecture IX. 

The importance of literal prophecies relating to the Messiah 
further considered. Various examples of such prophecies 
quoted and explained . 41$ 

Lecture X. 

An inquiry into the foundation of secondary senses, ascribed 
to Hebrew prophecy. Of the difficulties, with which 
that notion is attended. The primary and secondary 
senses of a Hebrew prophecy have no analogy to the 
double meaning observable in various examples of' heathen 
• oracles. Nor have they any resemblance to the double 





CONTENTS. 


XV 


Page 

sense of an allegory. Bishop Warhurtoii s system of. 
primary and secondary senses considered. The existence 
of secondary senses can he previously established by no 
system whatever. In every single instance they depend 
entirely on the authority of Christ and his Apostles. 
Explanation of this position . 440 

Lecture XI. 

History of biblical interpretation during the four frst 
centuries . 466 

Lecture XII. 

History of biblical interpretation from the fifth to the 
present century . 493 


Appendix. 






CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS. 


Page 27. 

- 47. 

- 52. 

- 69. 

- 293. 

- 295. 


line 4. conjecture read conjectures. 

-23. add , now Lord Bishop of Bristol. 

In the Note, add, Hug’s Introduction has been since trans¬ 
lated by Dr. Wait. 

-11. incidently read incidentally. 

-27. then read than. 

-12. after Reuchlin, add , and of Munster. 





TWO 

PRELIMINARY LECTURES 


THEOLOGICAL STUDY 

AND 

THEOLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT. 


A 


















/ 






- 




V 






‘ ■ 




■■■ 








FIRST PRELIMINARY LECTURE 


ON 

THEOLOGICAL STUDY. 

- + - 

The several branches of Theology are so 
closely connected, that without some knowledge 
of the whole, it is hardly possible to form a due 
estimate of any part. Indeed, whatever be the 
business of our study, we should previously ask 
what are the objects of inquiry: for till this 
question has been answered, we know not its 
real meaning. In the first place therefore the 
several branches of Theology must be described. 

They must also be properly arranged. A 
course of Lectures may contain all the divi¬ 
sions and sub-divisions, into which Theology is 
capable of being resolved ; but unless it contains 
them in a luminous order, it never can produce 
conviction; it can never lead to that, which is 
the ultimate object of all theological study, the 
establishment of the great truths of Christianity. 
To effect this purpose, the several parts must be 
so arranged, that the one may be deduced from 
a 2 



4 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE I. 


the other in regular succession. The evil con * 5 
sequences which follow the violation of this rule, 
may he best explained by an example. Suppose, 
that a Professor of Divinity begins his course of 
Lectures with the doctrine of Divine Inspiration; 
this doctrine, however true in itself, or however 
certain the arguments, by which it may he esta¬ 
blished, cannot possibly, in that stage of his inquiry, 
be proved to the satisfaction of his audience, 
because he has not yet established other truths, 
from which this must be deduced. For whether 
he appeals to the promises of Christ to his Apostles, 
or the declarations of the Apostles themselves, he 
must take for granted, that those promises and 
declarations were really made; that is, he must 
take for granted the authenticity of the writings, 
in which those promises and declarations are 
recorded. But how is it possible, that conviction 
should be the consequence of postulating, instead 
of proving, a fact of such importance? This 
example alone is sufficient to shew the necessity 
of method in the study of Theology, the necessity 
of arranging the several parts in such a manner, 
that no argument be founded on a proposition, 
which is not already proved. For if (as is too 
often the case in theological works) we undertake 
to prove a proposition by the aid of another, 
which is hereafter to be proved, the inevitable 
consequence is, that the proposition in question 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE I. 


5 


becomes a link in the chain, by which we establish 
that very proposition, which at first was taken 
for granted. Thus we prove premises from 
inferences, as well as inferences from premises; 
or, in other words, we prove—nothing. 

Nor is it sufficient merely to describe and to 
arrange the several parts of Theology. The 
grounds of arrangement, the modes of connexion, 
must also be distinctly stated. For hence only 
can be deduced those general principles, without 
which the student in Divinity will never be 
able to judge of the proofs which are laid before 
him. 

When we have proceeded thus far, our next 
object must be to learn where we may obtain 
information on the manifold subjects, which will 
gradually come under discussion ; that is, we must 
obtain a knowledge of the best authors, who have 
written on those subjects. But for this purpose 
it is not sufficient to have a mere catalogue of 
theological books, arranged alphabetically, or even 
arranged under heads, unless the heads themselves 
are reduced to a proper system. Nor is it sufficient 
to inform the hearer of the titles only of those 
books, which it may be proper for him to read: 
he should be informed, at least to a certain degree, 
of their contents: he should be informed also of 


6 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE I. 


the different modes, in which the same subject has 
been treated by different authors, and of the par¬ 
ticular objects, which each of them had in view. 
Further, since many excellent treatises have been 
produced by controversy, and many by other 
occasions, which it is always useful, and sometimes 
necessary to know, in order to view the writings 
themselves in their proper light, a knowledge 
of theological works should be accompanied with 
some knowledge of the persons who wrote them, 
a knowledge of their general characters, of the 
times in which they lived, and of the situations 
in which they were placed. 

With this knowledge of authors, if it be pro¬ 
perly disposed, may be united a knowledge equally 
instructive and entertaining, a knowledge of the 
advancement or decline of theological learn¬ 
ing, a knowledge of how much or how little 
has been performed in the different ages of 
Christianity. 

A Course of Lectures so comprehensive in its 
plan, as to embrace the manifold objects, which 
have been just enumerated, may appear too much 
for one lecturer to undertake, especially for the 
lecturer, who is now addressing you. And, even 
if he had ability for the undertaking, it might still 
be apprehended, that, before he had done, the 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE L 


7 


patience of the most indulgent auditory would be 
exhausted. But it would he foreign to the very plan 
of these Lectures to deliver copious dissertations on 
single points of Divinity, in which case they might 
never be brought to a conclusion. They relate 
indeed to all the branches of Divinity, however 
minute; they describe, as well the fruits which have 
been gathered, as the store-houses in which the 
fruits are preserved; but they do not contain the 
fruits themselves. Or they may he compared with 
a map and a hook of directions, from which the 
traveller may learn the road which he must take, 
the stages which he must go, and the places where 
he must stop, in order to arrive with the greatest 
ease and safety at his journey’s end. Descriptions 
of this kind are no less useful in travelling through 
the paths of knowledge, than in travelling over 
distant lands. And it is a description of this kind, 
which will he attempted in these Lectures. 

Here it may he asked, What is the end of 
the journey, to which these Lectures are intended 
to lead? Is it the object of elements, thus general 
and comprehensive, to generalize Christianity itself, 
to represent it in the form of a general theorem, 
from which individual creeds are to be deduced as 
so many corollaries ? Or is it their object to main¬ 
tain one particular creed to the exclusion of all 
others ? The latter may appear to he less liberal 


8 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE I. 


than the former, but it is only so in appearance; 
while the advantages ascribed to the former, are 
as imaginary, as those possessed by the latter are 
substantial. It is difficult to conceive any thing 
more painful or more injurious to the student in 
divinity, than to be left in a state of uncertainty, 
what he is at last to believe or disbelieve. Where 
no particular system of faith is inculcated, where 
a variety of objects is represented without dis¬ 
crimination, the minds of the hearers must become 
so unsettled, they must become so bewildered in 
regard to the choice of their creed, as to be in 
danger of choosing none at all. The attempt to 
generalize Christianity, in order to embrace 
a variety of creeds, will ultimately lead to the 
exclusion of all creeds; it will have a similar 
effect with Spinosa’s doctrine of Pantheism; it 
will produce the very opposite to that, which 
the name itself imports. And, as Pantheism, 
though nominally the reverse, is in reality but 
another term for Atheism, so Christianity, when 
generalized, is no Christianity at all. The very 
essentials of Christianity must be omitted, before 
we can obtain a form so general, as not to militate 
against any of the numerous systems, which in 
various ages have been denominated Christian. 
Some particular system therefore must be adopted, 
as the object and end of our theological study. 
What particular system must be the object and 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE I. 


9 


end of our theological study, cannot be a question 
in this place: it cannot be a question with men 
who are studying with the very view of filling 
conspicuous stations in the Church of England. 
That system then, which was established at the 
Reformation, and is contained in our liturgy, our 
articles, and our homilies, is the system, to which 
all our labours must be ultimately directed. 

If it be objected, that the student will thus 
be prejudiced in favour of a particular system 
before he has had an opportunity of comparing it 
with others, one answer to the objection has been 
already given, namely, that, however specious 
the plan of teaching Christianity on a broad 
basis, it is incapable of being reduced to practice; 
that, if various systems be taught, they must be 
taught, not in union, but in succession; and 
consequently, that at least- in point of time some 
one system must have the precedence. Further, 
as a comparison of the doctrines of the Church of 
England with the doctrines of other churches, will 
form a part of these very Lectures; as a review 
will be taken of other systems, when our own 
has been examined, and no advice will be given 
to shrink from inquiry, I hope I shall not be 
accused of attempting to fetter the judgement 
of my hearers in a matter of such importance 
as religious faith. 


10 PRELIMINARY LECTURE I. 

After all, should the selection of a particular 
system as the object of our primary consideration 
be attended with the unavoidable consequence, 
that a predilection be formed in regard to that 
system, which may render us less disposed to 
listen to the claims of any other, than perhaps 
strict impartiality might require, it may be asked, 
whether such consequence is really a matter of 
regret ? Is it a thing to be lamented, that 
members of the Church of England are educated 
with prepossessions in favour of the national 
church ? Or is it want of candour in a Professor, 
who, after an examination of other systems, can 
discover none, which he thinks so good as his 
own, to shew more regard to this system than 
to any other? Can it be blameable at a season, 
when every exertion is making by the very means 
of education, by education conducted both openly 
and privately, to alienate the rising generation 
from the Established Church, can it be blameable, 
or rather is it not our bounden duty, at such 
a season, to call forth all our energies, in making 
education on our part subservient to the established 
church ? 

That theological learning is necessary to make 
a good divine of the Church of England, is 
a position, which a learned audience will certainly 
be disposed to admit. And this position will 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE I. 


11 


appear still more evident, when we consider, what 
it is, which constitutes the chief difference between 
the learned and the unlearned in Theology. It is 
not the ability to read the New Testament in 
Greek, which makes a man a learned divine, 
though it is one of the ingredients, without which 
he cannot become so. The main difference con¬ 
sists in this, that while the unlearned in divinity 
obtain only a knowledge of what the truths of 
Christianity are , the learned in divinity know 
also the grounds , on which they rest. And that 
this knowledge ought to be obtained by every 
man who assumes the sacred office of a Christian 
teacher, nothing but the blindest enthusiasm 
can deny. If St. Peter, in addressing himself 
to the numerous converts of Pontus, Galatia, 
Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia, required that they 
should be always ready to give a reason of the 
hope that was in them, how much more necessary 
must he have thought this ability in those, who 
were set apart to be teachers of the Gospel ? But 
ask any one of those illiterate teachers, with which 
this country unfortunately abounds, ask him 
why he is a Christian and not a Mahometan; 
ask him why he believes that Christianity is 
a real revelation, and Mahometanism only a pre¬ 
tended one? He would answer, either with a vacant 
stare, or with a reproach at the impiety of the 
question, as if it had been proposed with any 


12 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE I. 


other view than to try his knowledge. Not so 
the learned divine: he would enter into those 
historical and critical arguments, of which the 
unlettered enthusiast has no conception, but by 
which alone the authenticity of the Gospel history 
can he established, by which alone the miracles 
recorded in it can be confirmed, by which alone 
the claims of Christianity to a divine origin can 
be proved legitimate. 

There is no ground then for that distinction 
between science and religion, that the one is an 
object of reason, the other an object of faith. 
Religion is an object of both; it is this very cir¬ 
cumstance, which distinguishes the unlearned from 
the learned in divinity; while the former has 
faith only, the latter has the same faith accom¬ 
panied with reason. The former believes the 
miracles and doctrines of Christianity, as being 
recorded in the New Testament; the latter also 
believes the miracles and doctrines recorded in 
the New Testament, and he believes them, 
because by the help of his reason he knows, 
what the other does not, that the record is 
true. 

But is not religion, it may be said, a matter 
of general import? Does it not concern all men, 
the unlearned, as well as the learned ? Can it be 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE I. 13 

true then, that such a literary apparatus is necessary 
for the purpose of religion? And would not 
at least nine-tenths of mankind be, in that case, 
excluded from its benefits ? Certainly not from 
its practical benefits, which alone are wanted, 
as they alone are attainable, by the generality 
of mankind. Men, whose education and habits 
have not prepared them for profound inquiry, 
whose attention is wholly directed to the procuring 
of the necessaries of life, depend, and must 
depend, for the truth of the doctrines which 
are taught them, on the authority of their teachers 
and preachers, of whom it is taken for granted, 
that they have investigated, and really know the 
truth. But is this any reason why men, who 
are set apart for the ministry, should likewise 
be satisfied with taking things upon trust ? Does 
it follow, because a task is neglected by those, 
who have neither leisure nor ability to under¬ 
take it, that it must likewise be neglected by 
those, who possess them both? Ought we not 
rather to conclude, that in proportion to the 
inability of the hearers to investigate for them¬ 
selves, in proportion therefore to the confidence 
which they must place in their instructor, their 
instructor should endeavour to convince himself 
of the truth of his doctrines ? And how is this 
conviction, this real knowledge of the truth to be 
attained without learning? 


14 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE I. 


But investigation, it is said, frequently leads 
to doubts, where there were none before. Now 
if a thing is false, it ought not to be received. 
If a thing is true, it can never lose in the end, 
by inquiry. On the contrary, the conviction of 
that man, who has perceived difficulties and over¬ 
come them, is always stronger, than the persuasion 
of him who never heard of their existence. The 
danger, which is apprehended, arises from super¬ 
ficial knowledge, which carries a man just far 
enough, to enable him to perceive difficulties, 
and there leaves him. In fact, it is not learning, 
but want of learning, which leads to error in 
religion. It was the want of learning which 
occasioned the abuses of religion in the middle 
ages; it was the learning of our early reformers, 
by which those abuses were corrected. Nor is 
that variety of religious sentiment, by which this 
nation is distracted, to be ascribed to learning. 
On the contrary, the leaders of that sect, which 
is now the most numerous, rather reprobate, than 
encourage learning; and that, in this respect, 
their practice agrees with their principles, is 
known to every man, who has once listened to 
their harangues. Eet no one therefore apprehend, 
that theological learning will create divisions in 
the Church of England; let no one apprehend, 
that it will now undo what it did at the 
Reformation. It is in fact the only method of 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE I. 


15 


ensuring to us the advantages of the Reformation, 
by guarding against enthusiasm on the one hand, 
and infidelity on the other. 

That knowledge puffeth up, may he true of 
some kinds of knowledge; and it might certainly 
be affirmed of that kind, to which St. Paul alludes 
in the passage so often misapplied by unlettered 
teachers, in vindication of their own defects. 
St. Peter commands us to add to our virtue 
knowledge; and St. Paul himself complains else¬ 
where of those, who, in religious matters, have 
zeal which is not according to knowledge. The 
more we advance in the study of Divinity, the 
more likely are we to learn humility; the most 
profound Divines are generally men of modest 
manners; and spiritual pride and vanity are 
chiefly to be found among those, who are the least 
distinguished for theological learning. 

We have every reason therefore to persevere 
in the study of Divinity; there is none whatever 
to dissuade us from it. We have every reason 
to applaud the wisdom of our illustrious founders, 
who were not of opinion, that it is easier to become 
a good divine, than a good mechanic; who were 
not of opinion, that the head requires less exercise 
than the hands ; or that, if a seven years’ apprentice¬ 
ship is necessary, to learn the manual operations 


16 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE L 


of a common trade, a less time is sufficient for 

the intellectual attainments of a Christian teacher. 

$ 

No. They required a two-fold apprenticeship to 
Divinity; a seven years’ study of the liberal 
arts, as preparatory to the study of Divinity, 
and another seven years’ study of Divinity itself, 
before the student was admitted to a degree in 
that profession. 



SECOND PRELIMINARY LECTURE 


ON 

THEOLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT. 


In the preceding Lecture it was observed, 
that on our entrance to the study of Divinity, 
we should endeavour in the first place to obtain 
a knowledge of the parts or branches, of which it 
consists; and in the second place, a knowledge of 
the manner, in which those parts or branches 
should be arranged. 

Theological writers are far from being unani¬ 
mous, either in regard to the number, or in re¬ 
gard to the kind of divisions, into which Theology 
should be resolved. In England especially, so 
little has been determined on this point, that 
few writers agree in their divisions; and in some 
of them the difference is such, that one should 
hardly suppose they were analysing the same 
subject. 

Bishop Cleaver, who has published a list of 
books recommended to the younger clergy, has 
B 


18 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE II. 


made not less than fourteen divisions in Theology, 
which he has arranged in the following order: 
I. The first division relates to Practical and 
Pastoral Duties, n. Devotion, in. Religion 
in general. iy. Revealed Religion, v. The 
Scriptures, vi. Comments on the Scriptures. 
vii. Concordances, &c. vm. Doctrines, ix. Creeds, 
Articles, Catechism, and Liturgy, x. Sacraments 
and Rites, (subdivided into Baptism, the Lord’s 
Supper, and Confirmation). xi. Constitution 
and Establishment of the Church of England, 
xii. Ecclesiastical History, xm. Ecclesiastical 
Law. xiy. Miscellaneous subjects.—Then comes 
a second list, in which these fourteen divisions 
are repeated; and lastly a third, in which they 
are exchanged for another set, amounting to 
seventeen, which it would he really tedious to 
enumerate. Indeed throughout the whole of this 
theological arrangement there is nothing like 
system to he discovered: no reason is assignable 
for the peculiar position of any one head: nor 
does their disposition in any way contribute to 
that, which should be the primary object of every 
writer—perspicuity. That the Heads or Chapters, 
adopted by this learned Prelate, were adopted 
for the purpose, not merely of giving a classed 
catalogue of hooks, but of directing the student 
in the order of his theological pursuits, appears 
from the following explanation, which he himself 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE II. 19 

has given at p. 10. of his Preface. “ I subjoin 
the following questions with the references an¬ 
nexed, in order to shew how far the Heads or 
Chapters, under which the boohs are classed , 
may be useful toward forming a regular course 
of study 

Bishop Tomline, in the Preface to his 
Elements of Christian Theology, divides the 
subject into four parts. The first relates to the 
Exposition of the Scriptures; the second to the 
Divine Authority of the Scriptures; the third 
to the Doctrines and Discipline of the Church 
of England; the fourth to Miscellaneous subjects, 
including Sermons and Ecclesiastical History.— 
In this arrangement there is method. For the 
Bible must be understood, before we can prove its 
divine authority; and both of these tasks must 
be performed, before we can proceed to deduce 
articles of faith. Sermons, it is true, should not 
be placed in the same class with Ecclesiastical 
History; and in all systematic arrangements, the 
term “ miscellaneous” should be wholly avoided. 
Where a classification is complete, the classes 
must be such, that every individual article may, 
in some one of .them, find its proper place. 

A four-fold division of Theology is a division, 
which has been long in use among the German 


20 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE II. 


divines. With them likewise the first division 
relates to the exposition of the Scriptures, and is 
termed Expository Theology. The second is 
called, by way of eminence. Systematic Theology: 
it includes both evidences and doctrines. The 
third division is called Historical Theology: it 
comprises the internal, as well as external history 
of the Church. The fourth and last division is 
called Pastoral Theology, comprehending such 
subjects, as relate especially to the duties of 
a parish priest. 

This division, though not universal among 
foreign divines, is at least the prevailing one, 
and the best, which has been hitherto in¬ 
troduced. 

To attempt therefore the introduction of any 
other may appear to savour of presumption. But 
as the inconveniences, which I have felt from 
all former arrangements, during a twenty years’ 
study of this particular subject, have suggested 
such modifications, as seem at least to answer the 
purpose of theological order, the sole object of 
which either is, or should be, to represent the 
several parts of Theology according to their con¬ 
nexions and dependences, a theological arrange¬ 
ment, formed on this principle, will be attempted 
in the present Lecture. 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE II. 


21 


That we should commence our theological 
studies with the study of that Book, from which 
all Christian Theology is derived, is a proposition, 
which can hardly require demonstration. That 
book, by which every Christian professes to 
regulate his religious creed, that book, of which 
our own Church declares, that “ whatsoever is 
not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is 
not to be required of any man, that it should 
be believed as an article of the faith,” is of course 
the primary object of religious inquiry. It is 
a fountain, at which every man must draw in 
preference even to the clearest of the streams, 
which flow from it. Indeed, if we neglect to 
draw there, we shall never know, whether the 
streams, which flow from it, are pure or turbid. 

But the Bible may be studied in such a variety 
of ways, there are so many points of view, from 
which it requires to be examined, and the accuracy 
of our conclusions depends so much on the order 
in which these several surveys are taken, that it 
is of the utmost importance to determine where 
we should begin. We must establish the Authen¬ 
ticity of the Bible, the Credibility of the Bible, 
the Divine Authority of the Bible, the Inspiration 
of the Bible, the Doctrines of the Bible. Now 
that we cannot begin with the Inspiration of the 
Bible appears from what was said in the preceding 


22 PRELIMINARY LECTURE II. 

Lecture. Nor can we begin with the Doctrines of 
the Bible; for till we have proved its divine autho¬ 
rity, its doctrines have not the force of obligation. 
Nor can we begin with its Divine Authority, or, 
in other words, with' the Evidences for the divine 
origin of our religion. For these evidences are 
arguments deduced from the Bible itself, and of 
course presuppose that the Bible is true. The 
authenticity of the Bible therefore must be pre¬ 
viously established, or the ’evidences, as they are 
called, have no foundation, whereon to rest. But 
no man can undertake to prove the authenticity of 
the Bible, till he thoroughly understands it. The 
Interpretation of the Bible therefore is manifestly 
one of the first parts or branches of Theology. 

It deserves however to be considered, whether 
a branch of Theology, hitherto unnoticed in this 
Lecture, is not entitled to a still higher rank. 
I mean the Criticism of the Bible. In that four¬ 
fold division, which I have already stated, both 
the criticism and the interpretation of the Bible 
are included in the first division. But the opera¬ 
tions of criticism, and the operations of interpre¬ 
tation are so distinct, that they ought not, however 
subdivided, to be placed in the same class. But 
if we refer them to separate classes, parts, or 
branches, we must be careful to refer them in 
such a manner, as not to violate the principle. 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE II. 


23 


which we apply to the other branches. Now 
the criticism of the Bible is a branch of such 
extent, it so encircles the interpretation of the 
Bible, that, however different their operations, it 
is difficult to determine where the separation 
shall begin. There is one department of sacred 
criticism, in which at least its application would 
be very inefficient, if the Bible were not already 
understood. But there is another department, 
which we may apply, as well as learn, even before 
we begin to interpret the Bible. And we shall 
find that it is necessary so to do. 

When we attempt to expound a work of high 
antiquity, which has passed through a variety of 
copies, both ancient and modern, both written and 
printed, copies which differ from each other in 
very numerous instances, we should have some 
reason to believe, that the copy or edition, which 
we undertake to interpret, approaches as nearly to 
the original, as it can be brought by human in¬ 
dustry, or human judgement. Or, to speak in the 
technical language of criticism, before we expound 
an author, we should procure the most correct text 
of that author. But in a work of such importance 
as the Bible, we should confide in the bare 
assertion of no man, with respect to the question, 
in what copy or edition either the Greek or the 
Hebrew text is contained most correctly. We 


24 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE II. 


should endeavour to obtain sufficient information 
on this subject, to enable us to judge for ourselves: 
and the information, which is necessary for this 
purpose, may be obtained, even before we are 
acquainted with any other branch of Theology. 
For when a passage is differently worded in dif¬ 
ferent copies, or, to speak in technical terms, 
when it has various readings, the question, which 
of those readings is probably the original or genuine 
reading, must he determined by authorities, and by 
rules, similar to those, which are applied to classic 
authors. The study of sacred criticism therefore, 
as far as it relates to the obtaining of a correct 
text, may precede the study of every other branch : 
hut, if it may , there are obvious reasons, why it 
should . And, if that department of it, which 
relates to the genuineness of whole books, belongs 
on one account to a later period of theological 
study, it may still on another account be referred 
even to the first. Though the application or the 
practice of it requires the assistance of another 
branch, yet a knowledge of its principles may be 
previously obtained. Now the study of sacred 
criticism produces a habit of accurate investigation, 
which will be highly beneficial to us in our future 
theological inquiries. Its influence also is such, 
that it pervades every other part of Theology: and, 
as our notions in this part are clear or obscure, our 
conclusions in other parts will be distinct or con- 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE II. 25 

fused. In short, it is a branch, which affords 
nutriment and life to all the other branches, which 
must become more or less vigorous, in proportion 
as this branch either flourishes or decays. To 
Sacred Criticism then the foremost rank is due. 

The reproaches, which have been made, and 
the dangers, which have been ascribed to it, pro¬ 
ceed only from the want of knowing its real value. 
It is not the object of sacred criticism to expose 
the Word of God to the uncertainties of human 
conjecture: its object is not to weaken, and much 
less to destroy the edifice, which for ages has been 
the subject of just veneration. Its primary object 
is to shew the firmness of that foundation, on 
which the sacred edifice is built, to prove the 
genuineness of the materials, of which the edifice 
is constructed. It is employed in the confutation 
of objections, which, if made by ignorance, can 
be removed only by knowledge. On the other 
hand, if in the progress of inquiry excrescences 
should be discovered, which violate the symmetry 
of the original fabric, which betray a mixture of 
the human with the divine, of interpolations, 
which the authority or artifice of man has en¬ 
grafted on the oracles of God, it is the duty of 
sacred criticism to detect the spurious, and remove 
it from the genuine. For it is not less blameable 
to accept what is false, than to reject what is 


26 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE II. 


true: it is not less inconsistent with the principles 
of religion to ascribe the authority of Scripture 
to that which is not Scripture, than to refuse 
our acknowledgement, where such authority exists. 
Nor should we forget, that, if we resolve at all 
events to retain what has no authority to support 
it, we remove at once the criterion, which dis¬ 
tinguishes truth from falsehood, we involve the 
spurious and the genuine in the same fate, and 
thus deprive ourselves of the power of ever 
ascertaining what is the real text of the sacred 
writings. 

But so far is sacred criticism from exposing the 
Word of God to the uncertainties of conjecture, 
that there is no principle more firmly resisted in 
sacred criticism than the admission of conjectural 
emendation, of emendation not founded on docu¬ 
ments. In the application of criticism to classic 
authors, conjectural emendations are allowable. 
There such liberties can do no harm, either to the 
critic, or to his readers: they affect no truth, either 
religious or moral. But the case is widely different, 
when conjectural emendation is applied to the 
sacred, writings. It then ceases to be merely an 
exercise of ingenuity: it becomes a vehicle for the 
propagation of religious opinion: and passages have 
been altered, in defiance of all authority, for the 
sole purpose of procuring support to a particular 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE II. 27 

creed. It is true, that we have many at least in¬ 
genious conjectures on the Greek Testament, which 
come not within this description. But even such 
conjecture should never be received in the text. 
If one kind were admitted, it might be difficult to 
exclude another, since the line of discrimination is 
not always apparent. Thus the Bible would cease 
to be a common standard; it would assume as 
many forms, as there are Christian parties. Now 
that edition of the Greek Testament, which above 
all others deserves the name of a critical edition, 
is founded on this avowed principle. Nil mutetur 
e conjectura . 

I have been more diffuse on this subject, than 
the present Lecture would otherwise require, lest 
any one should have imbibed a prejudice against 
that branch of Theology, to which I have assigned 
the foremost rank. 

Having thus properly prepared ourselves for 
the study of the Bible, and having procured the 
best critical editions of it, we may then proceed to 
its exposition, or interpretation. For this purpose 
we must obtain a knowledge of various subjects, 
which have reference either to the Old or to the 
New Testament. We must study what may be 
comprised under the general name of Jewish An¬ 
tiquities: nor must we neglect to obtain similar 


%$ 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE IL 


information in regard to other nations, who are 
recorded in the Bible, whether it relate to their 
Civil, or to their religious establishments. The state 
of literature, the peculiar modes of thinking, the 
influence of false philosophy, either on the Jews, or 
on their neighbours, are likewise subjects, which 
demand our attention. A knowledge of history, 
as far as it regards the Bible, is also necessary, not 
merely to elucidate the historical, but to explain 
the prophetical parts. And, in aid of history, it 
is further necessary that we should understand 
biblical chronology, and biblical geography. On 
all these subjects we are so well provided with 
information, through the industry of our predeces¬ 
sors, that a knowledge of these subjects is more 
easily attainable, than the apparent extent of 
them might induce us to suppose. 

But the qualification, next to be mentioned, 
as necessary for a good interpreter of the Bible is 
not of so easy attainment, namely, the knowledge 
of some fixed rule or principle, by which we may 
direct our judgements, amid the discordant inter¬ 
pretations of biblical commentators. That all men 
should agree in adopting one rule of interpretation, 
is no more to be expected, than that all men should 
agree in one religious creed. The very first prin¬ 
ciple of interpretation, namely that the real meaning 
of a passage is its literal or grammatical meaning, 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE II. 


29 


that, as the writer himself intended to apply it, so 
and no otherwise the reader must take it, this 
principle, from which no expounder of any other 
work would knowingly depart, is expressly rejected 
by many commentators on the Bible, not only 
among the Jews, who set the example in their 
Targums, but also among Christians, who have 
followed that example in their comments and 
paraphrases. It would be foreign to the present 
Lecture to discuss the question, whether it is allow¬ 
able in our interpretation of the Bible, to depart 
in some cases from the principle, just mentioned. 
But if it be allowable, this departure must be made 
at least with consistency : it must not be made, 
till the divine authority of the Bible is already 
established, for on that ground only can we defend 
the adoption of other rules. 

Now we must learn to understand the Bible, 
before we can judge of its pretensions to divine 
authority. But if, while we are ascertaining the 
justice of these pretensions, we apply rules of 
interpretation, which, if applicable at all, can be 
applicable only, when those pretensions are con¬ 
firmed, we are continually moving in a circle, and 
never find an end. It is not sufficient, that a pro¬ 
position be true, to warrant our arguing from the 
truth of it: we must not only know it to be true, 


30 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE II. 


but we must be able to prove it independently 
of the proposition, to which we apply it. If in 
geometry the proposition, that the square of the 
hypothenuse equals the squares of the sides, would, 
though indisputably true, be thought absurdly 
applied to demonstrate the properties of parallel 
lines, because these properties must be established 
before that proposition can be proved, shall we 
argue less logically in our religious inquiries? Shall 
we think it allowable, where our eternal welfare is 
concerned, to proceed less rigidly in our researches, 
than in cases of temporal moment, or in matters 
of mere speculation ? If it be true then (what 
no one will deny), that internal evidence is 
necessary to establish the divine authority of the 
Bible, if that internal evidence is nothing more, 
than the application of its contents to a particular 
object, and this application requires, that those 
contents should be understood, it is manifest, that 
we must learn to interpret them, at least in the 
first instance, by the rules, which are applied to 
the interpretation of other works. Even if we 
admit that every word, as well as every thought, 
was inspired, yet, as the object of revelation is not 
to perplex but to enlighten, we must still conclude, 
that the words, which are used in Scripture, are 
there used in the acceptation, which was common 
in the intercourse between man and man. 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE II. 


31 


When by the means above-mentioned we 
have acquired due information in respect to any 
portion of Scripture, for instance, the Five books 
of Moses, or the Four Gospels, we are then qua¬ 
lified, if not to investigate for ourselves, at least 
to study the investigations, which have been 
made by others, in respect to the authenticity 
of those books, that is, whether they were written 
by the authors, to whom they are ascribed. This 
is the plain question, which we must ask before 
we go further. Did such a person write such 
a book, or did he not? It is a mere historical 
question, which must be determined, partly by 
external, and partly by internal evidence. But 
great confusion has taken place on this subject, 
by intermixing matter, with which it has no 
necessary connexion. When the fact, that the 
first of our four Gospels, for instance, was written 
by St. Matthew, has been once established by 
historical and critical arguments, (which historical 
and critical arguments must be applied precisely 
as we would apply them to a profane author) it 
will follow of itself, that the Gospel was inspired, 
when we come to the subject of inspiration, and 
shew, that the author, whose work we have 
already proved it to be, had received the promise 
of the Holy Spirit. But if we investigate the 
two subjects at the same time, if we intermix 
the question of inspiration with the question of 


32 PRELIMINARY LECTURE II. 

authenticity, we shall probably establish neither. 
In fact, the two questions are so distinct, that 
we cannot even begin with the one, till we have 
ended with the other. Before the point has been 
ascertained, whether this Gospel was written by 
St. Matthew, or by an impostor in his name, 
there is no ground even for asking, whether it 
was written by inspiration; for in the latter case 
it would not be Scripture. It is obvious therefore, 
that in our inquiries into the authenticity of the 
sacred writings, the subject of inspiration must 
be left for future discussion. 

When we have established the authenticity 
of the sacred writings, that is, when we have 
established the historical fact, that they were 
written by the authors, to whom they are ascribed, 
the next point to be ascertained is, the credit due 
to their accounts. And here we must be careful 
to guard against a petitio principii , to which very 
many writers on this subject have exposed them¬ 
selves. If we assert, that the narratives for instance 
in the New Testament are therefore entitled to 
credit, because the writers were prevented by divine 
assistance from falling into material error, we 
assert indeed what is true; but it is a truth, which 
we can no more apply in the present stage of our 
inquiry, than we can apply the last proposition 
of a book of Euclid to the demonstration of the 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE II. 


33 


first. For what other arguments can we produce, 
to shew that those writers had such assistance, 
than arguments deduced from the writings them¬ 
selves? And does not this argumentation imply, 
that the truth of those writings is already esta¬ 
blished ? It must be established therefore without 
an appeal to inspiration, or it cannot he established 
at all. For as long as this truth remains unesta¬ 
blished, so long must inspiration remain unproved. 
The credibility therefore of the sacred writers 
must he estimated, in the first instance, as we 
would estimate the credibility of other writers. 
We must build on their testimony as human 
evidence, before we can obtain the privilege of 
appealing to them as divine. 

The branches of Theology, which have been 
hitherto described, are those, which require the 
same kind of treatment, as we apply to the in¬ 
vestigation of ancient writings in general. We 
now come to a more important part of our duty, 
on which we shall be qualified to enter, (and 
then only,) when we have obtained a competent 
knowledge of the preceding branches. When 
the authenticity and credibility of the Bible have 
been established in the manner, and by the steps 
above-mentioned, we are then enabled to collect 
evidence for the divine origin of our religion. 
When a prophecy, so descriptive of a particular 
C 


34 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE II. 


event as to warrant the belief, that this event was 
meant to be described, when such a prophecy 
is recorded in a hook, which we have proved to 
have been written some centuries before the 
event, we have the strongest evidence, that the 
person, who delivered the prophecy, was endowed 
with more than human wisdom. Or, if a miracle, 
ascribed to a particular person, is recorded in 
a book, which we have already proved to be worthy 
of credit, we have again the strongest evidence, 
that the person, to whom the miracle is ascribed, 
was endowed with more than human power. If 
then such persons deliver doctrines, which from 
their internal excellence are worthy of being 
communicated from God to man, we may argue 
to the reality of such communications, and regard 
the prophecies and miracles, as credentials of 
a divine commission. Thenceforward we may view 
the Bible, as a work containing the commands 
of God: thenceforward we may treat it as the 
fountain of religious faith. 

Such are the steps, by which we must gradually 
advance toward the evidence for the divine origin 
of our religion. 

From evidences we might proceed immediately 
to doctrines. But as this interval is the proper 
place for examining the subject of inspiration, we 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE II. 35 

must assign this place to it in our plan of study. 
The arguments, which are used for divine inspi¬ 
ration are all founded on the previous supposition 
that the Bible is true: for we appeal to the con¬ 
tents of the Bible in proof of inspiration. Con¬ 
sequently those arguments can have no force till 
the authenticity and credibility of the Bible have 
been already established. Nor is the establish¬ 
ment even of these points sufficient for our 
purpose. We must likewise have established the 
divine origin of our religion, before we can prove 
inspiration. For nothing but either divine testi¬ 
mony, or fulfilled prophecy, can confirm it. These 
general observations are sufficient to shew how far 
we must have advanced in our study of Theology, 
before we are qualified to enter upon this branch 
of it. 

The next branch of Theology relates to Doc¬ 
trines. When we have learnt to interpret the 
Bible, and have gone through the evidences for 
our religion, we are qualified to study its doctrines. 
Our knowledge of the former will enable us to 
judge, whether doctrines are warranted, or not 
warranted by Scripture: and if they are, our 
knowledge of the latter will enable us to perceive 
the force of their obligation, and convince us, 
that it is our interest, as well as our duty, to 
adopt them. 


36 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE IT. 


As the creeds, which have been professed in 
different ages, and by Christians of different deno¬ 
minations, are not only various, but sometimes 
contradictory, yet all agree in claiming the Bible 
for their support, their respective claims must be 
examined with all the attention, which is due to 
so important a subject. But as those claims re¬ 
quire, each of them, a separate examination, and 
therefore some one religious creed must he the first 
object of consideration, there cannot be a doubt in 
regard to the question, where it is our duty to 
begin. When we have obtained a knowledge, and 
have learnt the value, of our own system, we may 
undertake to compare it with others, and again 
examine those points, in which one or more of 
them shall be found to differ from it. 

Lastly, when we have thus acquired a know¬ 
ledge both of the doctrines themselves, and of the 
foundations, on which they are built, we shall find 
it as useful, as it is entertaining, to trace the pro¬ 
gress of religious opinion through the different 
ages of the Christian world. And, as this progress 
of religious opinion cannot easily be traced, nor 
satisfactorily explained, without knowing likewise 
the external causes, which operated in promoting 
the adoption of them, we must sum up our theo¬ 
logical studies with the study of ecclesiastical 
history. 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE II. 37 

Let us now recapitulate the branches of 
Theology, thus formed and arranged according 
to the principle laid down at the beginning of 
this Lecture. 

1. The first branch relates to the Criticism of the 

Bible. 

2. The second to the Interpretation of the Bible. 

3. The third to the Authenticity and Credibility 

of the Bible. 

4. The fourth to the Evidences for the Divine 

Origin of the religions recorded in it. 

5. The fifth branch relates to the Inspiration of 

the Bible. 

6. The sixth to the Doctrines of the Bible, which 

branch is sub-divided into 

(a) Doctrines deduced by the Church of 

England. 

( b) Doctrines deduced by other Churches. 

7. The seventh and last branch relates to Ecclesi¬ 

astical History. 

Having thus given a general description of the 
several branches of Theology, and having arranged 
them in such a manner, that a knowledge of the 


38 


PRELIMINARY LECTURE II. 


one may lead to a knowledge of the other, I shall 
proceed in the following Lectures to give a more 
minute description of them, as they successively 
come under particular review. 


LECTURES 


ON THE 

CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


























































\ 












































































t 













CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


-♦-- 

LECTURE I. 

As the Criticism of the Bible is the first 
object of our study, and as without it no man can 
become a sound divine, it must not only be 
described before all other branches, but must be 
described at considerable length. Nor can it be 
necessary to apologize to this audience for being 
diffuse on such a subject. If the critical inquiries 
into the poems of Homer, which have been lately 
instituted by Wolf and Heyne, are justly read 
with avidity by every real scholar, surely the 
same scholar, when he transfers his attention to 
the Bible, cannot listen with indifference to a 
recital of whatever has been attempted to place 
its criticism on a firm foundation. 

But before we proceed to this recital, it is 
necessary, according to the plan prescribed in the 
first preliminary Lecture, to give some account of 
those very useful works, which are known by the 
name of Introductions to the Bible. These In¬ 
troductions will furnish the theological student 



42 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


with such general information on the subjects of 
criticism and interpretation, as will be highly use¬ 
ful to him, before he undertakes these branches in 
detail. The works, which relate to special objects 
of criticism, will be mentioned hereafter, in their 
proper places. 

Among the introductory works, which we 
are now to consider, there are some, which have 
particular reference to the languages of the Sacred 
Writings. Of this description is Hottinger’s 
Thesaurus Philologicus. In this work Hottinger, 
who was Professor at Zurich in Switzerland, about 
the middle of the seventeenth century, treats of 
the Targums or Jewish Paraphrases, of the Masora 
or Jewish Criticism, and other branches of Jewish 
literature, with the view of illustrating the He¬ 
brew Bible. Works of similar tendency are the 
Philologus Hebrceus , and the Philologus Hebrceo- 
mixtus of Leusden, who was Professor at Utrecht 
in the latter half of the seventeenth century. 
Leusden wrote likewise a similar introduction 
to the Greek Testament, entitled Philologus 
Hebrceo-grcecus . 

Other introductions to the Sacred Writings 
contain information explanatory of their contents, 
without entering so particularly into the lan¬ 
guage, in which they were written. Of this 


LECTURE I. 


43 


description is the Opus Analyticum of Van Til, 
who was Professor at Leyden, at the beginning 
of the last century. This work, which is the 
substance of Van Til’s lectures, and to which 
Heidegger’s Enchiridion Bihlicum served as a 
syllabus, contains an introduction to the several 
books, both of the Old and New Testament, 
relative to the authors of them, to the times 
when, and the places where they were written, 
and to their general contents. 

Of greater value are the Introductions of 
Carpzovius and Pritius, the one to the Old, the 
other to the New Testament. Carpzovius, or, 
as he was called in his own country, Carpzov, 
was Professor at Leipzig in the former part of 
the last century, and published, in the year 1721, 
the first edition of his Introductio ad Lihros 
Canonicos JBibliorum Veteris Testamenti , which 
was reprinted in 1731, and again in 1741. 
Carpzov was a man of profound erudition, and 
indefatigable industry. His work contains the 
principal materials, which had been afforded 
by his predecessors, perspicuously arranged, and 
augmented by his own valuable observations. It 
is also partly employed in the confutation of 
Hobbes, Spinoza, Toland, and other antiscrip- 

turists.-The service, which Carpzov rendered 

to the Old Testament, was rendered by Pritius 



44 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


to the New Testament, who in 1704 published 
at Leipzig, where he was born, and was educated, 
his Introductio ad JLectionem Novi Testamenti, 
which went through several editions with notes 
and additions by Kapp and Hofmann. Hof¬ 
mann’s edition was printed at Leipzig in 1737, 
and reprinted in 1764. Its improvements on the 
original edition are so considerable, that whoever 
purchases the Introduction of Pritius (and it 
deserves to be purchased by every student in 
Divinity) must be careful in regard to the date 
of the title-page. 

In 1767 Dr. Semler Professor of Divinity at 
Halle in Saxony, published in one volume octavo 
his Apparatus ad Novi Testamenti interpretatio- 
nem; and in 1773 in the same form his Appa¬ 
ratus ad Veteris Testame?iti Interpretationem. 
A more useful publication is the Institutio inter¬ 
prets Novi Testamenti by Ernesti, who was 
Professor of Divinity at Leipzig. A third edi¬ 
tion was published by the author in 1775: and 
a fourth edition was published by Professor 
Ammon in 1792, with literary notices of works 
printed after Ernesti’s death. 

With respect to French writers of Introduc¬ 
tions to the Bible, we may mention in the first 
place Du Pin’s Preliminary Dissertation, or Pro- 


LECTURE I. 


45 


legomena to the Bible, which was prefixed to his 
work called, The Library of Ecclesiastical Authors, 
and was reprinted both at Paris and at Amsterdam 
in 1701, with considerable additions, in two quarto 
volumes. It explains various subjects relative both 
to the Old and to the New Testament: and is 
a very useful work, notwithstanding the severity, 
with which it was treated by Richard Simon. 

The Apparatus Biblicus written by Lamy, 
a priest of the Oratory, published first in Latin, 
then in French, and translated into English in 
1723, contains likewise much useful introductory 
information, particularly in respect to Jewish 
Antiquities. 

More extensive and more profound are Calmet’s 
Dissertations, in the form of Prolegomena to the 
Sacred Writings. Calmet, a very learned Bene¬ 
dictine at the beginning of the last century, first 
published these dissertations in his Commentary 
on the Bible, where they were severally prefixed 
to the books, to which they were intended 
as introductions. They were afterwards collected 
into one work by Calmet himself, and published 
with considerable additions, in three quarto 
volumes, at Paris in 1720. This work, I believe, 
has likewise been translated into English : but 


46 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


as I have never seen the translation, I can give 
no account of it. 

L’Enfant, a French Clergyman of the Re¬ 
formed Church, who, in conjunction with Beau- 
sobre, translated the New Testament into French, 
which was first published at Amsterdam in 1718, 
wrote a Preface to the translation, which makes 
a good historical introduction to the New Testa¬ 
ment. Of this Preface there has been published 
an English translation, which some years ago was 
reprinted at Cambridge. 

Nor have our own countrymen, especially 
within the last sixty years, been deficient in 
writing Introductions to the Bible. One of our 
earliest publications of this kind is Collier’s Sacred 
Interpreter. The author of this work, who must 
be distinguished from the author of the Ecclesi¬ 
astical History, lived in the former part of the 
last century. It not only went through several 
editions in England, but in 1750 was translated 
into German. It is printed in two octavo volumes, 
and relates both to the Old and to the New Testa¬ 
ment. It is calculated for readers in general, and 
is a good popular preparation for the study of the 
Holy Scriptures. The last edition was printed 
in 1796. 


LECTURE I. 


47 


Lardner’s History of the Apostles and Evan¬ 
gelists, which was first printed in three volumes 
in 1756 and 1757, hut makes the sixth volume of 
Kippis’s edition of Lardner’s works, is an admi¬ 
rable Introduction to the New Testament. It is 
a storehouse of literary information collected with 
equal industry and fidelity. 

In 1761 the first edition of Michaelis’s Intro¬ 
duction, which had been published in Germany 
in 1750, was translated into English : and three 
years afterwards Dr. Owen published his Observa¬ 
tions on the Four Gospels.—From the three last 
mentioned works, Dr. Percy, afterwards Bishop 
of Dromore, compiled that very useful manual 
called A Key to the New Testament, which 
has gone through many editions, and is very 
properly purchased by most candidates for Holy 
Orders. 

In imitation of this key to the New Testament, 
as the author himself says in his Preface, was 
published in 1790 4 A Key to the Old Testament’ 
by Dr. Gray, then of St. Mary Hall Oxford, 
now Prebendary of Durham. But it is a much 
more elaborate performance than the Key to the 
New Testament. It is a compilation from a great 
variety of authors, to which reference is made at 
the bottom of each page; and is a very useful 


48 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


publication for students in Divinity, who will 
find at one view what must otherwise he collected 
from many writers. The last edition, with many 
improvements, was published in 1822, in one 
volume 8vo. 

Dr. Harwood’s Introduction to the Study and 
Knowledge of the New Testament, of which the 
first volume was published in 1767, the second in 
1771, I mention at present more on account of 
its title, than on account of its contents. Though 
entitled an Introduction to the New Testament, 
it is not so in the sense, in which the above- 
mentioned works are Introductions. It does not 
describe the several books of the New Testament, 
but contains a collection of dissertations, relative 
partly to the characters of the Sacred Writers, 
partly to the Jewish history and customs, and to 
such parts of heathen antiquities, as have reference 
to the New Testament. But, as these disser¬ 
tations display great erudition, and contain much 
information illustrative of the New Testament, 
Dr. Harwood’s Introduction is certainly to be 
recommended to the theological student. 

Another English publication, containing an 
Introduction to the Sacred Writings, is Bishop 
Tomline’s Elements of Christian Theology, the 
first volume of which contains an Introduction 


LECTUHE I. 


49 


both to the Old and to the New Testament, 
and has been since published for that purpose in 
a separate volume. Having already in another 
place delivered my opinion on this work, I will 
here repeat it in the same words, “ It is the 
result of extensive reading; the materials of it 
are judiciously arranged; the reasonings in it 
are clear and solid; it is well adapted to the 
purpose, for which it was intended, as a manual 
for students in Divinity, and it may be read 
with advantage by the most experienced divine.” 
It has gone through several editions, though 
I know not in what year the last was printed. 

In 1821 Dr. Cook Professor of Divinity in 
the University of St. Andrew published at 
Edinburgh in one volume octavo his ‘ Inquiry 
into the books of the New Testament’. This 
Inquiry relates to the Importance of theological 
study, the Interpretation of the New Testament, 
the Authenticity of the New Testament, the 
Integrity of the text, the Style of the New 
Testament, and the New Testament as a Di¬ 
vine Revelation. The materials are chiefly, 
though not wholly arranged according to the 
plan recommended in these Lectures. 

I now come to a class of introductory writers, 
who have particularly distinguished themselves by 
D 


50 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


their profound critical researches. The author, 
who took the lead in this branch of learning, 
was Richard Simon, a priest of the congregation 
of the Oratory at Paris. In 1678 he published 
his Critical History of the Old Testament, 
which was reprinted in 1685 with considerable 
additions. It consists of three parts, the first 
containing a Critical History of the Hebrew Text, 
the second a Critical History of the Translations, 
the third a Critical History of the Interpretation 
of the Old Testament. In 1684 he published 
his Critical History of the Text of the New 
Testament, which corresponds to the first part 
of the former work: and in correspondence with 
the second and third parts of that work, he 
published, in 1690, his Critical History of the 
Versions of the New Testament, and in 1693 
his Critical History of the principal Commentators 
on the New Testament. Lastly, in 1695 he 
published his New Observations on the Text 
and Versions of the New Testament. The 
criticism of the Bible being at that time less 
understood, than at present, the researches, which 
were instituted by Simon, soon involved him 
in controversy, as well with Protestant as with 
Catholic writers, particularly with the latter, to 
whom he gave great offence by the preference 
which he shewed to the Hebrew and Greek 
text of the Bible above that, which is regarded 


LECTURE I. 


51 


as the oracle of the Church of Rome, the Latin 
Vulgate. Though I would not be answerable 
for every opinion advanced by Simon, I may 
venture to assert, that it contains very valuable 
information in regard to the criticism, both 
of the Hebrew Bible, and of the Greek Testa¬ 
ment. 

The same critical acumen, which Simon 
displayed in France, has been since displayed 
by Michaelis and Eichhorn in Germany; by the 
former in his Introduction to the New, by the 
latter in his Introduction to the Old Testament. 
Both of these Introductions are formed on the 
same plan: they are each divided into two parts, 
the one containing a critical apparatus necessary 
for the understanding of the original, the other 
an introduction to every single book. It is that 
critical apparatus, which distinguishes these In¬ 
troductions from former Introductions, either to 
the Old, or to the New Testament. But the 
Introduction of Michaelis is too well know in 
this place, to require a particular description: 
and were it otherwise, the translator, whose notes 
are closely connected with the text of the author, 
is not qualified to make a due estimate of the 
publication. Nor can it be necessary to say any 
thing more at present of Eichhorn’s Introduction, 
which has never been translated, and from the 


52 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


difficulties both of the language and of the 
subjects, cannot be understood by many English 
readers.* 

In 1808 Dr. Gerard, Professor of Divinity 
at Aberdeen, published a work on the principles 
of sacred criticism, entitled, ‘ Institutes of bibli¬ 
cal criticism, or Heads of the Course of Lectures 
on that subject read in the University and 
King’s College of Aberdeen.’ The author him¬ 
self calls it “an attempt to reduce the general 
principles and rules of sacred criticism to a regu¬ 
lar system.” And in this attempt the learned 
author has so arranged his propositions, that they 
must generally produce conviction. 

The catalogue of Introductions shall now be 
closed with the following work, ‘ An Introduc¬ 
tion to the critical study and knowledge of the 
Holy Scriptures, by Thomas Hartwell Horne, 
A.M. of St. John’s College, Cambridge.’ The 
first edition was published in 1818 , in two 
octavo volumes: but the author’s materials so 
increased after the publication of the first edi¬ 
tion, that in 1821 he published a second edition 


* Other German Introductions either to the Old or to 
the New Testament have been published by Haenlein., Berger, 
and Hug: but they are likewise untranslated. 



LECTURE I. 


53 


comprising four octavo volumes. It is an Intro¬ 
duction both to the Old and to the New Testa¬ 
ment, and contains a greater variety of matter, 
than any other Introduction to the Bible. The 
first volume relates to The Genuineness and 
Inspiration of the Bible; the second to Scrip¬ 
ture Criticism and Interpretation : the third to 
Scripture Geography and Antiquities: and the 
fourth volume contains particular introductions to 
the several books of the Old and New Testa¬ 
ment. The work is accompanied with maps and 
fac-similes of various biblical manuscripts. Upon 
the whole it is a very useful publication, and 
does great credit to the industry and researches 
of the indefatigable author. 

After this account of the principal Introduc¬ 
tions, we may undertake a particular examina¬ 
tion of Sacred Criticism, and proceed, agreeably 
to the plan prescribed in the first preliminary 
Lecture, to a review of what has been done in 
different ages with respect to this primary branch 
of Theology. 

It will appear perhaps to those, who are less 
conversant with the subject, that a recital of this 
kind should rather be a sequel, than a preface, 
to the study of criticism. Now this observation 
would certainly apply to science properly so 


54 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

called: and no one who was not a mathemati¬ 
cian, for instance, should undertake to read such 
a work, as Montucla’s History of Mathematics. 
But the principles and the history of sacred 
criticism bear to each other a very different 
relation, from that of the principles and the 
history of mathematics. In the latter, a know¬ 
ledge of principles is necessary to understand the 
history: in the former, the history is necessary 
to understand the principles. Sacred criticism 
has for its object an aggregate of literary labours, 
undertaken at different periods, and for different 
purposes: and its prmciples are general con¬ 
clusions deduced from those literary labours. 
Consequently, though we may comprehend the 
laws of criticism without a previous knowledge of 
what has been done in this branch of Theology, 
yet without this previous knowledge we shall 
never comprehend the reason or foundation of 
those laws. On the other hand, a knowledge of 
those laws is not necessary for the understanding 
of the plain facts, which a history of criticism 
has to record. A review therefore of the pro¬ 
gress, which has been made in this branch of 
Theology, even from the earliest to the present 
age, may be given in such a manner, as to be 
intelligible to every man of liberal education. 
And the advantages arising from such a review 
are obvious, not only because it will enable us to 


LECTURE I. 


55 


judge of the rules, which modern critics have 
adopted, hut because we shall thus become ac¬ 
quainted with the several stages, through which 
the criticism of the Bible has passed, and with 
the means, by which it has acquired its present 
form. We shall perceive how the general stock 
of knowledge has gradually increased, to whom 
we are indebted for each augmentation, with 
what rapidity or slowness these augmentations 
accumulated, what causes accelerated or retarded, 
what influence gave to each of them its k pecu¬ 
liar direction. That these things are worthy of 
notice, will surely be allowed by all men, to 
whom literature is an object of regard. Let us 
proceed then to the intended review. 

The first writer, who appears to have paid 
attention to the Criticism of the Bible, is the 
celebrated Origen, who was born in Egypt toward 
the end of the second century, and died at Tyre 
soon after the middle of the third century. His 
criticism was directed to the emendation of the 
Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew 
Bible, made at Alexandria in the time of the 
Ptolemies, for the benefit of the Greek Jews, 
who were established there, and which derived 
its name from the now-exploded story of seventy 
or seventy-two translators being employed for 
that purpose. Origen himself relates in his Com- 


56 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


mentary on St. Matthew, that in the manuscripts 
of the Septuagint, which was become the Bible 
of the Greek Christians, such alterations had 
been made, either by design, or through the 
carelessness of transcribers, as to make the manu¬ 
scripts materially differ from each other, and 
of course, even if no other cause prevailed, from 
the Hebrew Bible. Of this difference the 
Jews availed themselves in their controversies 
with the Christians, who, with a very few excep¬ 
tions, were ignorant of Hebrew, while the Jews, 
especially after the establishment of the school 
at Tiberias in Galilee, had begun again to cul¬ 
tivate the original language of the Old Testa¬ 
ment. This knowledge enabled them, in their 
controversies with the Christians, to detect the 
differences between the Hebrew and the Greek 
Bible: and, as it frequently happened, that 
the passages quoted by the Christians against 
the Jews, were either not contained at all in 
the Hebrew, or contained there in a different 
shape, the arguments, which were founded on 
such quotations, fell immediately to the ground. 
It was sufficient to reply, “ the words, which 
you quote, are not in the original.” It is true, 
that an original may be corrupted as well as 
a translation: and that the Jews were guilty of 
such corruptions has been asserted both in 
ancient and in modern times. But when we 


LECTURE I. 


57 


consider the rules, which were observed by the 
Jews in transcribing the sacred writings, rules 
which were carried to an accuracy that bordered 
on superstition, there is reason to believe, that 
no work of antiquity has descended to the present 
age so free from alteration, as the Hebrew Bible. 
Nor does Origen appear to have suspected, that 
the differences between the Hebrew and the 
Greek arose from any other cause, than altera¬ 
tions in the latter. 

He made therefore the Hebrew text the 
basis of those corrections, which he proposed to 
introduce in the Septuagint. For this purpose 
he formed a kind of Polyglot: and, as this 
was not only a work of immense labour, but has 
served as a model, even to the signs or marks 
of criticism, for later editors, it may not be 
improper to give a detailed account of it. 

It contained the whole of the Old Testament, 
divided into columns, like our modern Polyglot 
Bibles. The first column was occupied by the 
Hebrew. But, as very few of those persons, 
to whose immediate benefit his labours were 
directed, were acquainted even with the letters 
of that language, he added, in a second column, 
the Hebrew words in Greek letters, that his 
readers might have at least some notion of the 


58 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


form and sound of the Hebrew words. To 
express their meaning, he added, in a third 
column, a Greek translation from the Hebrew, 
which had been lately made by a Jew, of the 
name of Aquila, and which adheres so closely 
to the original, as frequently to violate the com¬ 
mon rules of Greek construction. The fourth 
column was occupied by another Greek transla¬ 
tion of the Hebrew Bible, likewise lately made, 
hut probably after the translation of Aquila. 
The author of this second Greek translation was 
Symmachus, whose object was to give, not so 
much a literal translation of the Hebrew, as a 
translation expressive of the sense, and free as 
possible from Hebraisms. 

Having thus prepared the way for his pro¬ 
posed emendation of the Septuagint, Origen 
placed in the fifth column the amended text of 
the Septuagint; and in the sixth column an¬ 
other Greek translation, which had been lately 
made by Theodotion. 

In this revision of the Septuagint, the first 
part of Origen’s labour was to collate it through¬ 
out with the Hebrew; and wherever he found 
any word or words in the former, to which there 
was nothing correspondent in the latter, such 
word or words he did not expunge from the 


LECTURE I. 


59 


Septuagint, but he inclosed them within certain 
marks expressive of their absence from the He¬ 
brew, namely with an obelus, or mark of minus 
prefixed, and a crotchet at the end to express 
ho% far the obelus or mark of minus was meant 
to extend. On the other hand, where the He¬ 
brew had any word or words, to which there was 
nothing correspondent in the Septuagint, there 
he inserted such word or words, as were necessary 
to supply the deficiency. And that the reader 
might always know where such insertions were 
made, he prefixed to them an asterisk, or mark 
of plus, again denoting by a crotchet at the end, 
what words the asterisk was meant to include. 
And, as the version of Theodotion held a middle 
rank between the closeness of Aquila and the 
freedom of Symmachus, the additions in question 
were chiefly made in the words which were used 
by Theodotion. For this preference there was 
also another reason, namely, that the style of 
Theodotion more nearly resembled the style of 
the Septuagint, than either of the other transla¬ 
tions, and therefore was better adapted to the 
purpose, to which Origen applied it. Hence also 
the translation of Theodotion very properly occu¬ 
pied the column adjacent to the corrected version 
of the Septuagint. In some instances, either 
where Theodotion’s translation was defective, or 
for other reasons at present unknown, Origen used 


60 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


the words of Aquila or Symmachus. But in all 
cases he expressed by the initials A, 0 , 2 , the 
translations from which he copied. These were 
the sources, from which Origen drew in every 
part of the Old Testament. But in some books 
he used two other Greek translations, of which 
the authors are unknown : and in certain pas¬ 
sages even a seventh Greek version, of which the 
author is likewise unknown. 

The name, which is commonly given to this 
work of Origen, is Biblia Hexapla, or Bible 
in six columns, which it contained throughout, 
namely the Hebrew, the Hebrew in Greek cha¬ 
racters, the version of Aquila, the version of 
Symmachus, the Septuagint version, and that of 
Theodotion. In those hooks, which contained 
likewise two anonymous versions, and filled there¬ 
fore eight columns, it was called Biblia Octapla; 
and in the passages, where the third anonymous 
version occupied a ninth column, it received the 
name of Enneapla. On the other hand, as out 
of the six columns, which went through the 
whole work, only four were occupied with Greek 
translations, the same work, which most writers 
call Hexapla, has by others been denominated 
Tetrapla. They are only different names of the 
same work viewed in different lights, though 
some authors have fallen into the mistake of 


LECTURE I. 


61 


supposing, from the difference in the names, that 
they denoted different works* 

The labour, which was necessary for a work 
of such magnitude, can be estimated only by 
those, who have been engaged in similar un¬ 
dertakings. Eight and twenty years are said 
to have been employed in making preparations 
for it, independently of the time, which was em¬ 
ployed in the writing of it. It was begun at 
Caesarea, and probably finished at Tyre. The 
text of the Septuagint, as settled by Origen, is 
called the Hexaplarian text, to distinguish it from 
the text of the Septuagint, as it existed before 
the time of Origen, which is therefore called 
the Antehexaplarian. 

On the value of the Hexapla modern critics 
are divided; and it has been considered by some 
very recent writers, rather as a mechanical, than 
as a critical undertaking. It is true, that great 
as the labour was, much was still wanting to make 
it a perfect work. It does not appear, that Origen 
at all collated manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible: 
and, though he compared different manuscripts of 
the Septuagint, without which he could not have 
known the variations, of which he speaks, it does 
not appear, that he applied those collations to the 
purpose of correcting the text. A comparison 


62 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


between his own copy of the Hebrew Bible and 
his own copy of the Septuagint seems alone to 
have determined the places, in which he deemed 
it necessary to introduce corrections. It was his 
design, to render the Bible of the Christians in all 
respects the same with the Bible of the Jews, that 
in future controversies there might be a common 
standard, to which both parties might appeal. 
And if in the execution of this work, the 
rules, which modern critics have Jearnt from 
longer experience are not discernible, it must 
be remembered that this was the first effort, 
which was ever made to amend a corrupted 
text, either of the Old or of the New Testa¬ 
ment. 

The work, in its entire state, has long ceased 
to exist; and we are indebted, for our knowledge 
of it, to Eusebius and Jerom, both of whom had 
seen it in the library of Caesarea, whither the 
original itself was removed from Tyre, where 
Origen died, by Pamphilus the founder of the 
Caesarean library. But as the magnitude of the 
work was such, that it could not be transcribed 
without an heavy expence, no copy, as far as 
we know, was ever taken of the whole: and the 
original perished in the flames, which consumed 
the library of Caesarea on the irruption of the 
Saracens. 


LECTURE I. 


63 


But that column of the Hexapla, which con¬ 
tained the corrected text of the Septuagint, with 
its critical marks, had been fortunately trans¬ 
cribed by Eusebius and Pamphilus with occasional 
extracts from the other versions. To this tran¬ 
script, and the copies which were taken from it, 
we are indebted for the preservation of the 
Hexaplarian text of the Septuagint, though not 
exactly in the state, in which it was left by 
Origen. It was published by Montfaucon, with 
fragments from the other versions, in two folio 
volumes at Paris in 1714, under the title, 
Hexaploram Origenis quce supersunt. 

Such is the history of one of the most 
celebrated among the literary undertakings of 
antiquity. In the next Lecture, this review of 
sacred criticism, as far as it relates to the early 
and the middle ages, will be continued and 
concluded. 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


LECTURE II. 

In the preceding Lecture was given some 
account of the labours of Origen to amend the 
corrupted text of the Septuagint version. At 
the end of the third, and at the beginning of 
the fourth century, similar, though less laborious 
tasks, being founded probably on the prior 
labours of Origen, were undertaken by Lucian 
a Presbyter of Antioch, and by Hesychius an 
Egyptian Bishop. Their revisions, or, as we 
should say of printed hooks, their editions of 
the Septuagint, were held in such high estima¬ 
tion, that the edition of Hesychius was generally 
adopted by the churches of Egypt, and that of 
Lucian was commanded by Constantine the Great 
to be read in all the churches from Antioch to 
Constantinople. 

Nor was the criticism of the Hebrew Original 
neglected in those ages. Tiberias in Galilee was 


LECTURE II. 


65 


then the seat of Jewish learning: it was the 
residence of the best Hebrew scholars, the re¬ 
pository of the best Hebrew manuscripts. The 
two great works of Jewish literature are the 
Talmud, and the Masora. The commencement 
of the Talmud may be dated from the third 
century: but, as it chiefly relates to doctrines, 
a description of it would be foreign to the 
present Lecture. The materials of Jewish cri¬ 
ticism are contained in the Masora, which re¬ 
ceived its title from the mode of forming it, the 
primary parts of it being a collection of literary 
notices, which had been preserved by tradition, 
not indeed from the time of Moses, as some 
of the Jews pretend, nor even from the time 
of Ezra, as others assert, but probably during 
several centuries before they were committed to 
writing, or rather before they were collected into 
one general mass. This collection was formed at 
Tiberias. In what century it was begun is not 
positively known, but certainly not sooner than 
the fourth, and probably not sooner than the fifth 
century. It was considered in the light of a com¬ 
mon-place book, to which new materials were 
continually added, till at length it became as 
large as the Bible itself. The subjects, of which 
it treated, were, the great and small divisions of 
the Hebrew text, the words with various readings, 
the letters, the vowel points, and accents. It is 
E 


66 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


true, that the Masora, in addition to the materials, 
which it afforded for Hebrew criticism, contained 
such fanciful and absurd remarks, as might excite 
a prejudice against the whole. But we must not 
therefore reject the good with the had: for we are 
indebted to those learned Jews, who began and 
continued the Masora, for the accuracy, with 
which the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible have 
descended to the present day; an obligation, 
which should never be forgotten, however great 
in other respects might have been the prejudices 
of those, to whom the obligation is due. 

The history of sacred criticism now conducts 
us into Italy, and directs our attention to the 
labours, which Jerom bestowed on the Latin 
version, at the end of the fourth, and the be¬ 
ginning of the fifth century. 

The old Latin version was a translation from 
the Greek, in the Old Testament, as well as in 
the New, the Hebrew not being understood, 
except in rare instances, by the members of the 
Latin Church. It was probably made in the 
early part of the second century: at least it was 
quoted by Tertullian before the close of that 
century. But before the end of the fourth 
century, the alterations, either designed or ac¬ 
cidental, which had been made by transcribers 


LECTURE II. 


67 


of the Latin Bible, were become as numerous, as 
the alterations in the Greek Bible, before it was 
corrected by Origen. Indeed, if we may judge 
from the strong expressions, which were used on 
this subject by Augustine, as well as by Jerom, 
they were even more numerous. For Augus¬ 
tine, in one of his epistles to Jerom, calls the 
Latin version “ tarn varia in diversis codicibus, 
ut vix tolerari possit and Jerom himself says, 
“ cum apud Latinos tot sint exemplaria , quot 
codices , et unusquisque , pro arbitrio suo, vel 
addiderit vel subtraxerit quod ei visum est .” 

It has been doubted, whether these numerous 
varieties arose from alterations in one Latin 
translation, or whether from the beginning there 
were not several Latin translations. A discus¬ 
sion of this question would employ more time, 
than the present Lecture can admit. But the 
probable result of such a discussion is, that before 
the time of Jerom there was only one Latin 
translation of the Old Testament but more than 
one of the New , whence the variations in the 
Latin manuscripts of the New Testament, were 
augmented by the additional cause, that differ¬ 
ent translations were sometimes blended in the 
same copy. But whatever causes might have 
operated in producing the evil, both Augustine 
and Jerom were of opinion, that it was such, as 


68 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


required an immediate remedy. And as no one 
was so well qualified for a critical revision of the 
Latin version as Jerom himself, he was com¬ 
missioned to undertake the task hy Damasus, 
who then presided over the See of Rome. 

In correcting the Latin version of the New 
Testament, he every where compared the trans¬ 
lation with the original. In the Old Testament, 
as the Latin version was there only the trans¬ 
lation of a translation, he compared it with 
that translation; for he was not commissioned to 
make a new translation from the Hebrew, but to 
correct an existing translation, which had been 
made from the Greek. But he determined to 
select, for the basis of his emendations, the most 
accurate text of the Septuagint, which he could 
procure; and a journey to Palestine afforded 
him an opportunity of consulting the Hexapla 
preserved in the Library of Caesarea. Though 
his revision therefore of the Latin version, was 
only in the New Testament a revision according 
to the original, yet the emendations, which he 
made in the Old Testament were founded on a 
copy of the Septuagint, which Origen himself 
had corrected from the Hebrew. 

But whatever defects, or whatever excellen¬ 
cies might have existed in Jerom’s revision of 


LECTURE II. 


69 


the Old Testament, only two hooks of it, the 
Psalms and the book of Job, have descended to 
the present age. In fact, these two books, with 
the Chronicles, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and 
Solomon’s Song, were the only parts of it, which 
were ever published. The manuscripts, which 
contained his revision of the other books of the 
Old Testament, were entrusted by him to some 
person, who either secreted or destroyed them. 
Of this enemy to sacred criticism we know 
nothing more than what Jerom has incidently 
said of him in a letter to Augustine, Pleraque 
prior is lab oris fraude cujusdam amisimus. 

The loss sustained by this treachery served 
only to stimulate Jerom to fresh exertions. He 
determined no longer to revise an old translation 
from the Greek, but to make a new translation 
from the Hebrew. And this translation from 
the Hebrew he finished in the year 405. 

But nearly two hundred years elapsed before 
this translation received the sanction of the 
Latin Church. The contemporaries of Jerom 
regarded a translation from the Hebrew, as a 
dangerous innovation: for, strange as it may 
appear, the Septuagint version was more respected 
in the Latin Church, than the Hebrew original. 
At that time, the now-exploded story of seventy- 


70 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

two interpreters, all translating by divine inspira¬ 
tion, all translating independently, yet each of 
them producing the same translation, was firmly 
believed, in the Latin as well as in the Greek 
Church. And this belief, united with a hatred 
of the Jews, and an ignorance of Hebrew, gave 
to the Septuagint version a higher rank, than 
to the original itself. Hence Augustine, in other 
respects a friend and admirer of Jerom, who con¬ 
curred with him in opinion, as to the state of 
the old version, and promoted his revisal of it 
from the Greek , yet, when Jerom undertook his 
translation from the Hebrew , inveighed bitterly 
against it, as if Christianity itself were affected 
by the undertaking. At length, however. Pope 
Gregory the Great, at the end of the sixth cen¬ 
tury, gave to Jerom’s translation the sanction of 
Papal authority. From that period the old trans¬ 
lation from the Greek was gradually abandoned 
for Jerom’s translation from the Hebrew, except 
in the Psalms, where the daily repetition of 
them in the church service, and their being 
adapted to church music, made it difficult to 
introduce alterations. 

Such is the history of the Latin Vulgate in 
the Old Testament. In the New Testament the 
Latin Vulgate is the old translation, corrected 
by Jerom, as already related. With respect to 


LECTURE II. 


71 


the Apocrypha, as contained in the Vulgate, 
those books are partly in the old translation, 
and partly in a translation made by Jerom him¬ 
self. But it must not he inferred that modern 
manuscripts or printed editions of the Vulgate 
contain either Jerom’s translations, or Jerom’s 
corrections in the same state, in which he deli¬ 
vered them. Latin manuscripts were no less 
exposed to alteration in the middle a;ges, than 
they were in the early ages of Christianity. 
Even the two editions of the Vulgate, which 
were printed at Rome in 1590 and 1592, both 
of them under Papal authority, and both of 
them pronounced authentic, differ materially from 
each other, in sense, as well as in words. But 
the modern state of the Latin Vulgate is a sub¬ 
ject, which is foreign to the present Lecture; 
though the fact, which has been just stated, 
may teach us this useful lesson, that nothing 
but sacred criticism can preserve the Bible in 
its pristine purity. 

We must now again direct our attention to 
the East, and proceed from the Latin to the 
Syrian Church. For this Church, at an early 
age of Christianity, a translation had been made, 
of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, and of 
the New Testament from the Greek. And this 


72 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

translation, which is called the Old Syriac ver¬ 
sion, soon became, and still remains, the esta¬ 
blished version of the Syrian Church. 

But there was another Syriac version of the 
New Testament, which has likewise descended 
to the present age : and it is this Syriac version 
which properly belongs to an history of criticism, 
because it was afterwards collated with Greek 
manuscripts. It is called the Philoxenian ver¬ 
sion, from Philoxenus bishop of Hierapolis, 
under whose auspices it w r as made by Polycarp, 
his rural bishop. It was undertaken at the be¬ 
ginning of the sixth century, from motives at 
present unknown, though not improbably from 
a desire of having a translation of the New 
Testament, which should approach to the ori¬ 
ginal even more closely, than the old or common 
version. For the Philoxenian version adheres to 
it, even with servility. And this quality, instead 
of forming an objection to it, constitutes its chief 
value. In the translation of works, which are 
designed for amusement, something more must 
be attempted, than mere fidelity. But in works 
intended for divine instruction, a translation can¬ 
not be too close. And, whenever ancient versions 
are applied to the purposes of criticism, even a 
servile adherence to their original augments the 


LECTURE II. 


73 


value of them. An ancient version, except in 
places, where that version has been altered, is 
regarded as the representative of the Hebrew or 
Greek manuscript, from which that version was 
taken ; consequently, the more closely such manu¬ 
script is represented, the more accurately shall 
we know its readings, and hence the more pre¬ 
cisely shall we be enabled to judge, when the 
authenticity of readings is disputed. 

To render this close translation still more 
conformable with the original, it was collated 
with Greek manuscripts in Egypt, at the begin¬ 
ning of the seventh century. The person who 
undertook this collation was Thomas, bishop of 
Germanicia: and he not only corrected the Sy¬ 
riac text from those manuscripts, where he 
thought that correction was necessary, but at 
other times he noted their various readings in 
the margin. As these various readings were 
taken from manuscripts of the Greek Testa¬ 
ment, which were probably older, than the oldest 
now extant, they are of course important to 
sacred criticism. A copy of this revision or edi¬ 
tion of the Philoxenian version, with the Greek 
readings in the margin, is now in the Bodleian 
Library ; and it has been printed by Dr. White, 
late Hebrew Professor at Oxford, with short, but 
very useful notes. 


74 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


The collation of the Philoxenian version is 
the last effort in sacred criticism, which was 
attempted in Egypt: nor does any part of Asia, 
since that period, present us with a similar under¬ 
taking. In six years from the date of this colla¬ 
tion, commenced the Era, and soon afterwards 
the devastation, of the Arabs. The Jewish school 
at Tiberias, with another, which had been esta¬ 
blished at Babylon, continued, it is true, to pre¬ 
serve a precarious existence. It is true also, 
that learning revived under the Caliphs of Bag¬ 
dad ; but it was not the learning of the Bible. 
The Christians of the East remained in sub¬ 
jection and ignorance; and even the Jews were 
compelled at last, to abandon the schools, to 
which they were so long attached. 

If we turn our attention from the East to 
the Greek empire at this period, we shall find 
it equally devoid of materials for our present 
inquiry. Indeed the criticism of the Bible does 
not appear to have ever taken root in Greece : 
and the metropolis of the Greek empire, as far 
as religion was concerned, seems to have been 
wholly engaged with the controverted points of 
dogmatic Theology. 

If we go onward to the West of Europe, the 
prospect is still gloomy: for after the death of 


LECTURE II. 


75 


Jerom, we find no one among the Latin fathers, 
who could lay claim to the title of critic. Some 
dawnings of this science occasionally indeed broke 
through the general darkness: and the corrup¬ 
tions, which then were creeping into the Latin 
Vulgate, from the removal especially of marginal 
glosses into the text, were noticed by some men 
of superior sagacity, who at the same time en¬ 
deavoured to apply a remedy for the evil. Alcuin, 
secretary to Charlemagne, at the beginning of 
the ninth century, and one of the most learned 
men of that age, undertook to revise the Vul¬ 
gate, from the Hebrew in the Old Testament, 
and from the Greek in the New. Another revi¬ 
sion of the Vulgate was undertaken at the end 
of the eleventh century, by Lanfranc, archbishop 
of Canterbury. And about fifty years afterwards 
a third revision was attempted in Italy by Car¬ 
dinal Nicolaus, who made the same complaint 
of the Vulgate, which Jerom had made of the 
old version, “ quot codices tot examplciria” At 
length these complaints became so general as to 
give rise to the Correctoria Biblica, in which the 
false readings of the Vulgate were corrected by a 
comparison, partly with the originals, and partly 
with more ancient manuscripts. But our country¬ 
man, Roger Bacon, who acknowledges the evil, 
and describes some of its causes, appears to have 
been dissatisfied with many of those corrections. 


76 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


While the criticism of the middle ages, in 
England, France, and Italy, was confined to the 
Latin Vulgate, the south of Spain produced a 
race of critics in the Hebrew Bible, who might 
contend with those of any age or nation. When 
the learned Jews of Tiberias and Babylon were 
compelled to take refuge in Europe, they chiefly 
settled in that part of Spain, which was inha¬ 
bited by the Moors, who spake the language 
then become vernacular in the countries, from 
which the Jews were driven. Hence the south 
of Spain became, during the middle ages, the 
centre of Hebrew learning. It is sufficient to 
mention the names of Abn Ezra, Moses Mai- 
monides, and David Kimchi, who were all born 
in Spain in the twelfth century, and laid the 
foundation of that Hebrew learning, which after¬ 
wards extended to Germany, and was thence 
propagated by the invention of printing through¬ 
out the rest of Europe. 

Beuchlin, or Capnio, the father of Hebrew 
learning among Christians, was born at Pfort- 
sheim in Suabia in 1454. Being a man of rank, 
as well as of learning, he operated not only by 
precept, but by example: and at the end of the 
fifteenth century, it became the fashion in Ger¬ 
many to study the Old Testament in Hebrew. 
For this study an opportunity was afforded by 


LECTURE II. 


77 


the circumstance, that the Hebrew Bible was 
one of the earliest printed books, the first edition 
having been printed in 1488, and parts of it, 
as the Psalms, and the Pentateuch, still earlier. 
The Catholic clergy at Cologne opposed indeed, 
to the utmost of their power, the cultivation of 
the Hebrew language, which they considered 
as replete with danger, not only to the Latin 
Vulgate, but to the church, of which they were 
members. Nor were their fears ungrounded. 
The revival of Grecian literature about the same 
period, of which Capnio was likewise one of the 
chief promoters, increased the dangers of the 
church of Rome: and Luther began his refor¬ 
mation before Capnio died. 

The preceding review of the progress, which 
was made by sacred criticism, during the early 
and the middle ages, is sufficient to supply the 
student in Divinity with general notions on this 
subject, and to furnish him with a clue to future 
inquiries. More than this it is hardly possible 
to perform in a public lecture, in which a limit 
must be assigned to minuteness of investigation, 
or the attention of the audience would soon be 
exhausted. In fact, minuteness of investigation 
must be reserved for the closet; and all that 
now remains for the lecturer to perform, in re¬ 
spect to the critical labours of the early and 


78 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


the jniddle ages, is to mention the works, from 
which a more ample knowledge of those critical 
labours may he derived. 

Of the labours of Origen in amending the 
text of the Septuagint, Montfaucon, the editor 
of the Hexaplorum Origenis quee supersunt , 
has given a full account in the preface, entitled, 
Preeliminaria in Hexapla Origenis , which is 
divided into eleven chapters, according to the 
subjects, of which it treats. Another work, which 
ought to be consulted, though it was published 
before Montfaucon’s edition, is that of Hum¬ 
phrey Hody, who was Greek Professor at Oxford 
in the beginning of the last century. This work 
is entitled, De Bibliorum Textibus originalibus , 
versionibus Greeds et Latina Vulgata , libri 
quatuor, and was printed at Oxford in 1705. 
Among the writers on the Septuagint version, 
no one has displayed either more knowledge of 
the subject, or more critical sagacity, than Hody. 
The fourth and last part of this work, is that 
which relates to the Hexapla. 

Of the similar labours of Lucian and Hesy- 
chius, in amending the text of the Septuagint, 
there is no writer either ancient or modern, 
from whom any particular account can he de¬ 
rived. Their editions- are no longer in exist- 


LECTURE II. 


79 


ence: nor have even fragments remained of 
them. Readings, derived from those editions, 
are undoubtedly contained in manuscripts of the 
Septuagint: hut we have no means of distin¬ 
guishing them from other readings. We only 
know, that those editions did exist, and were 
in high repute: and for this information, little 
as it is, we are chiefly indebted to Jerom, who 
has occasionally mentioned them, especially in 
his Preface to the Chronicles, and in his Preface 
to the four Gospels. 

Of the industry bestowed by the learned Jews 
of Tiberias on the criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 
the most complete information is afforded by 
John Buxtorf, who was born in Westphalia 
about forty years after the death of Capnio, and 
after having studied at several German uni¬ 
versities, was at last Professor of the Oriental 
languages, at Bale or Basel in Switzerland. To 
his work on this subject he gave the title of 
Tiberias: it was first printed at Basel in 1620, 
and reprinted in 1665 with additions by his 
son. No Christian has ever possessed so great 
a share of Jewish literature, as the elder Bux¬ 
torf: his Tiberias is indispensably necessary for 
the understanding of the Masora, and indeed 
all the other writers on this subject have de¬ 
rived their materials from Buxtorf, among whom 


80 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

we may particularly mention Bishop Brian Wal¬ 
ton, who has given an account of the Masora 
in the eighth chapter of the Prolegomena pre¬ 
fixed to the London Polyglot. 

Of the industry employed by Jerom on the 
Latin version, the first source of intelligence is 
Jerom’s own works, of which the Benedictine 
edition by Martianay was printed at Paris in 
five volumes folio between the years 1696 and 
1706: but the last, the most complete, and the 
best arranged edition, was published by Vallarsi 
at Verona, between 1734 and 1742 in eleven 
volumes folio. The information, which relates 
to our present subject, must he chiefly sought 
in the first volume of Martianay’s edition, and 
in the ninth and tenth of Vallarsi’s: for these 
are the volumes, which contain the Bibliotheca 
divina Hieronymi, with the dissertations of the 
editors on Jerom’s translation and correction of 
the Scriptures. But to form a due estimate of 
the excellencies or the defects in those trans¬ 
lations and corrections, it is further necessary to 
consult the Prolegomena of Walton, Mill, and 
Wetstein, with Simon’s Critical History, and 
the Introduction of Micliaelis. 

On the criticism of the New Syriac or Phi- 
loxenian version, which was displayed at the 


LECTURE II. 


81 


beginning of the seventh century by Thomas, 
bishop of Germanicia, the first, though very im¬ 
perfect, account was given in the second volume 
of the Bibliotheca Orientalis by Assemani, who 
derived his intelligence from Syrian writers. 
More particular information may be derived from 
a treatise entitled Dissertatio de Syriacctrum 
novi foederis versionum indole atque usu , pub¬ 
lished in 1761, by Dr. Glocester Ridley, who 
possessed the manuscripts of the Philoxenian 
version, which are now at Oxford, and from 
which Dr. White printed his edition. But I 
know of no work, in which the subject is so 
fully discussed as in the Introduction of Mi- 
chaelis. 

For the efforts, which were made in the 
ninth and following centuries to correct the Latin 
Vulgate, the above-mentioned work of Hody 
must be again consulted. And for the merit 
of those learned Jews, who distinguished them¬ 
selves in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, 
must be consulted JVolfiii Bibliotheca Hebrcea , 
which was published at Hamburg between 1715 
and 1783 in four quarto volumes. 

The description, which has been given in this 
Lecture, has been given, as the subjects occurred, 
without regard to any other, than chronological 
F 


82 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

order. But from the sixteenth century to the 
present period, the labours of the learned are so 
connected in the subjects of their inquiry, that 
it is necessary to keep that connexion in view: 
and that connexion would be lost, if the sub¬ 
jects were intermixed. Though chronological 
order therefore will still be preserved in each 
single description, the subjects themselves must 
he described separately. 

The subject of the next Lecture will he the 
Criticism of the Greek Testament. 



CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


-4- 

LECTURE III. 

The Criticism of the Greek Testament is 
a subject of the very first importance to every 
Christian. The importance of this subject must 
indeed be manifest to every one, who considers, 
that the criticism of the Greek Testament con¬ 
tains the elements of that analysis, by which 
we gradually discover the truth of our religion. 

To determine the mode of analysis, which is 
necessary for this purpose, of analysis, which shall 
bring with it conviction, let us suppose a man of 
liberal education, of sound understanding, and of 
serious disposition, who in his religious opinions, 
for want of proper instruction on that subject, has 
remained unsettled, but would willingly assent 
to the truth of Christianity, provided certain pro¬ 
positions, necessary to establish that truth, were 
clearly explained to him. A man of this descrip¬ 
tion, if a person endeavoured to convince him 
from the New Testament, would argue in the 



84 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


following manner. “ The book, which you lay 
before me, professes indeed to contain a faithful 
account of what was done and taught, both by 
the founder of Christianity, and by others, who 
assisted in the propagation of it. But you con- 
not expect, that I should allow its pretensions 
to be valid, till you have assigned sufficient 
reasons that they are so; and these reasons 
involve several propositions, which must be 
distinctly stated, and distinctly proved. That 
our attention may not be distracted by dis¬ 
cussing different subjects at the same time, let 
us, in the first instance, confine ourselves to the 
Epistles, which you ascribe to St. Paul, who, as 
you assure me, not only became a zealous pro¬ 
moter, from a zealous enemy of Christianity, but 
was vested even with divine authority for that 
purpose. On this divine authority you found 
a set of doctrines, which you require me to re¬ 
ceive through the medium of your interpretation, 
and declare at the same time, that if I do 
not receive them, the consequences will be the 
most dreadful, that imagination can conceive. 
Now I am perfectly willing (the supposed person 
might continue to say) I am perfectly willing 
to assent to truths of such importance; but 
I must previously know that they are truths, 
or I have no foundation for my assent. For 
the present, I will wave the question, whether 


LECTURE III. 


85 


your interpretations be right or wrong; though 
I am well assured, that something more is re¬ 
quisite to a right understanding of those Epistles, 
than is possessed by many, who venture to 
explain them. But whatever be their meaning , 
you must first convince me, that St. Paul was 
the author of them, or you leave them devoid 
of all religious obligation. And I expect, that 
your proof be conducted, not with lofty decla¬ 
mation, or deep denunciation against unbelief; 
but by sober sense, and plain reason. For though 
I am ready to place implicit confidence in 
St. Paul, as soon as you have proved, that he 
was a teacher sent from God ; though X am 
ready to have unbounded faith in divine 
doctrines, as soon as I know, that they are 
divine; yet X cannot transfer this unbounded 
faith to any modern preacher of the Gospel, 
however great his pretensions, whether from 
learning, or from sanctity. When you therefore 
assure me, that St. Paul had a divine com¬ 
mission, and that he wrote the Epistles in 
question, I expect these assertions, on your part, 
to be supported by argument: for your authority 
goes as far as your arguments go, and no 
further.” 

If the theologian, to whom this supposed 
person addressed himself, were a man accustomed 


86 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


to biblical investigation, and had sought a basis 
for his faith, such theologian would reply, “ I will 
undertake to produce arguments, which shall 
convince any reasonable man, that Paul, the 
apostle of Jesus Christ, was really the author 
of the Epistles ascribed to him: and when this 
point has been established, we have then a foun¬ 
dation, on which our superstructure may rest 
without danger.” But before you undertake this 
task, the objector may still reply, there are cer¬ 
tain preliminaries, which must be settled between 
us, or we shall never come to any definite con¬ 
clusion. You must not take the English trans¬ 
lation, as the work, which is to be proved 
authentic; for the term authentic translation is 
a term without meaning. You may say a correct 
translation, or a faithful translation; but the 
term authentic applies only to the original , it 
applies only to the Greek Epistles, as written, or 
alleged to be Witten, by St. Paul himself. Now 
that the Greek manuscripts of those Epistles 
very frequently differ, as well from each other, 
as from the printed editions, is a fact, which it 
would be useless to deny, and absurd to overlook. 
Which therefore of the Greek manuscripts, will 
you take into your hand, when you assert, “these 
are the Epistles, which proceeded from the pen 
of St. Paul.” This is no easy matter to deter¬ 
mine; and yet it must be determined, if the 


LECTURE III. 


8 ? 


question of authenticity be examined with that 
precision, which the importance of the subject 
demands. This supposed conversation will render 
our present subject familiar to every hearer: it 
will shew him, where, and what is the key¬ 
stone of the arch, which supports the fabric of 
Christianity. 

The first operation, therefore, in respect to 
the Greek Testament, which must be performed 
by a theologian, who intends to build his faith 
on a firm foundation, is to ascertain what copy of 
the Epistles ascribed to St. Paul, what copy of an 
Epistle ascribed to any other Apostle, what copy 
of a Gospel ascribed to this or that Evangelist, 
has the strongest claim to be received by us, as 
a true copy of the author’s own manuscript; 
whoever the author, or authors, may really have 
been, which must be left to future inquiry, or 
we shall again take for granted the thing to be 
proved. Now the investigation of this previous 
question is a work of immense labour. The 
Greek manuscripts of St. Paul’s Epistles (or, as 
we should rather say in the present stage of 
our inquiry, of the Epistles ascribed to St. Paul,) 
amount, as far as we know them, to more than 
an hundred and fifty: and the Greek manuscripts 
of the Gospels, with which we are acquainted, 
amount to more than three hundred and fifty. 


88 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


But among all these manuscripts there is none, 
which is so far entitled to precedence, as to be 
received for the true copy, of which we are in 
search. In fact the truth lies scattered among 
them all: and in order to obtain the truth, we 
must gather from them all. Nor is an examina¬ 
tion of these manuscripts, numerous as they are, 
alone sufficient for the object, which we have in 
view. The quotations from the Greek Testa¬ 
ment in the voluminous writings of the Greek 
fathers, must likewise be examined, that we may 
know what they found in their Greek manu¬ 
scripts. The ancient versions must also be con¬ 
sulted, in order to learn what the writers of 
those versions found in their copies of the Greek 
Testament. When all these collections from 
manuscripts, fathers, and versions, have been 
formed, and reduced into proper order, we have 
then to determine in every single instance, which 
among the various readings is probably the genu¬ 
ine reading. And that we may know how to 
determine, we must establish laws of criticism, 
calculated to counteract the causes, which pro¬ 
duced the variations, and, by these means, to 
restore the true copy, of which we are in search. 

Now it cannot be supposed that labours, for 
which, when taken collectively, no single life 
is sufficient, would be recommended even by a 


LECTURE III. 


89 


zealot in his profession, as forming a regular 
part of theological study. Those labours are 
unnecessary for us: they have been already un¬ 
dertaken, and executed with success. But if the 
industry of our predecessors has removed the 
burden from our shoulders, we must not there¬ 
fore become indifferent spectators , unconcerned 
whether the burden be well or ill supported. 
We must at least inform ourselves of the nature, 
and extent of those labours ; or we shall never 
know, whether the object has been obtained, for 
which they were undertaken. We must make 
ourselves acquainted with the causes, which pro¬ 
duced the variations in question, or we shall 
never know, whether the laws of criticism, which 
profess to remedy that evil, are founded in truth 
or falsehood. 

We must inquire therefore, — first into the 
causes of the evil, and then—into the remedies, 
which have been applied to it; remedies, which 
we shall find hereafter to have been applied with 
great success. 

The manuscripts of the Greek Testament, 
during the fourteen hundred years, which elapsed 
from the apostolic age to the invention of print¬ 
ing, were exposed, like all other manuscripts, to 
mistakes in transcribing: and as every copy had 


90 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


unavoidably some errors, those errors multiplied 
with the multiplication of the copies. Letters, 
syllables, words, were added, omitted, exchanged, 
or transposed, from mere carelessness in writing, 
whether the writer transcribed from a manuscript 
before him, or wrote, as was frequently the case, 
from the dictation of another. In the latter 
case, his ear might be deceived by a similarity 
in the sound of different words; in the former 
case, his eye might be deceived by a similarity 
in their form , by different words having the 
same final syllable, or by different sentences hav¬ 
ing the same final word. At other times, a 
transcriber misunderstood the manuscript, from 
which he copied, either falsely interpreting its 
abbreviations, or falsely dividing the words, where 
they were written (as in the most ancient manu¬ 
scripts) without intervals. Or the fault might 
be partly attributable to the manuscript itself, 
in cases, where its letters were wholly or partially 
effaced or faded. 

But the greatest variations arose from alter¬ 
ations made by design . The transcribers of the 
Greek Testament were not bound, like the tran¬ 
scribers of the Hebrew Bible, by rules prescribed 
to them in a Masora, or critical law book. 
Hence they often took the liberty of improving, 
as they supposed, on that manuscript, of which 


LECTURE III. 


91 


it was their business to have given only a copy; 
a liberty similar to that, which is now taken in 
a printing-office, where a compositor often im¬ 
proves on the manuscript of an author. Hence, 
a native of Greece, accustomed to hear his own 
language without an admixture of Oriental 
idioms, and regarding therefore a Hebraism or 
a Syriasm, in the light of a solecism, would ac¬ 
cordingly correct it, not considering or not know¬ 
ing, that these Hebraisms and Syriasms are the 
very idioms, which we should expect from Greek 
writers, who were born or educated in Judea, 
idioms therefore which form a strong argument 
for the authenticity of their writings. At other 
times, these same improvers, when they remarked 
that one Evangelist recorded the same thing 
more fully than another, (a circumstance again 
of great importance, as it shews there was no 
combination among the Evangelists,) regarded 
this want of perfect coincidence as an imperfec¬ 
tion, which they deemed it necessary to remove, 
by supplying the shorter account from the longer. 
Nor did they spare even the quotations from 
the Old Testament, whether those quotations 
were transcripts from the Septuagint, or trans¬ 
lations from the Hebrew by the author himself. 
If they only differed from the transcriber's Sep¬ 
tuagint, he concluded, that they were wrong, 
and required amendment. 


92 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


But the most fruitful source of designed 
alterations was the removal of marginal annota¬ 
tions into the text. Indeed to this cause may 
he ascribed the alterations from parallel passages, 
whenever those parallel passages had been written 
in the margin. Other marginal notes consisted 
of explanations, or applications of the adjacent 
text: and, when a manuscript with such notes, 
fell into the hands of a transcriber, he either 
supposed, that they were parts of the text, acci¬ 
dentally omitted, and supplied in the margin, 
or considered them as useful additions, which 
there would be no harm in adopting. In either 
case he took them into the text of that manu¬ 
script, which he himself was writing. 

The latter case may indeed be referred to 
that class of various readings, which derive their 
origin from wilful corruption, being introduced 
for the sole purpose of obtaining support to some 
particular doctrine. That such things have been 
done, and done by all parties, is not to be 
denied: for we have examples on record. But 
as we have received our manuscripts of the Greek 
Testament, not out of the hands of the ancient 
heretics, but from the orthodox members of the 
Greek church, we have less reason to apprehend, 
that they have suffered, in points of doctrine, 
from heretical influence. 


LECTURE III. 


93 


Having tlius taken a general review of the 
causes, which operated, till the invention of print¬ 
ing, in producing the variations of the Greek 
text, I have now to undertake the more agree¬ 
able office of recording the attempts, which have 
been made in later ages, to restore it to its ori¬ 
ginal purity. 

For this purpose it is necessary to give a 
description, or history of the critical editions of 
the Greek Testament; that is, a description of 
all those editions, which were printed either 
wholly from Greek manuscripts, or with emen¬ 
dations from Greek manuscripts, or with a criti¬ 
cal apparatus, for the purpose of emendation. In 
this description, an account of the materials em¬ 
ployed by each editor, and of the use which he 
made of them, must form an essential part: for 
hence only can we determine the value of his 
edition. We must observe also the influence of 
preceding on subsequent editions, and trace the 
progress of the Greek text throughout its several 
stages. 

The description must be divided into two 
periods. The one commences with the first 
edition of the Greek Testament, and ends with 
the Elzevir edition of 1624: the other includes 
the critical editions, which have appeared from 


94 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

that time to the present. The first period is 
limited by the Elzevir edition of 1624, because 
this edition forms an epoclia in the history of the 
Greek text. After having fluctuated, during 
more than a century in the preceding editions, 
the Greek text acquired in this edition a con¬ 
sistency, which it has retained to the present 
day. In this edition was established the Greek 
text, which is now in daily use, and is known 
by the name of the Textus receptus. The de¬ 
scription therefore of the first period will record 
the gradual formation of this text, and will 
furnish an estimate of its excellencies or defects. 
Nor will the description of the second period be 
less important: for it will contain the rise and 
progress of that critical apparatus, which now 
enables us to form a more accurate text, than 
it was possible to form at an earlier period. 

The first printed edition of any part of the 
Greek Testament, is one by Aldus Manutius, 
who printed the six first chapters of St. John’s 
Gospel at Venice in 1504; and in 1512 the 
whole of St. John’s Gospel was printed at 
Tiibingen in Suabia. But these impressions, 
though it is proper to mention them, as the 
first of their kind, can now be regarded only 
as literary curiosities. They had no influence 
on subsequent editions, and therefore are of no 


LECTURE III. 95 

importance in a critical history of the Greek 
text. 

The first printed edition of the whole Greek 
Testament is that, which is contained in the 
Complutensian Polyglot, so called from Complu- 
tum, now Alcala, in Spain, where it was printed. 
The volume containing the Greek Testament, 
which is accompanied with the Latin Vulgate in 
a parallel column, is dated the 10th of January 
1514. The whole was conducted under the 
auspices of Cardinal Ximenes, archbishop of 
Toledo, who employed for that purpose some of 
the most distinguished Hebrew and Greek 
scholars of that age, and who spared neither 
pains nor expence, in procuring Hebrew and 
Greek manuscripts. 

The Greek manuscripts, which were used for 
this work, are not particularly described by the 
editors, but are all included under one general 

character, namely, “ exemplciria - vetustissima 

simnl et emendatissima,” But as the term 
“ ancient” is only a relative expression; as the 
accuracy of a manuscript, in its critical sense, 
depends not on the precision of its orthographical 
execution, but on the genuineness of its readings; 
and as all editors are disposed to enhance the 
value of their materials, the assertion of the 



96 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

Complutensian editors, in respect to their manu¬ 
scripts, requires the confirmation of internal 
evidence. But the manuscripts themselves, which 
were deposited in the university library at 
Alcala, are no longer in existence. And if 
manuscripts were sent to them by Pope Leo 
the Tenth, as the editors assert, from the 
Vatican Library, no one knows, at present, 
what they are, or even where they must be 
sought. 

The only means therefore of ascertaining the 
quality of the Greek manuscript or manuscripts, 
from which the Complutensian Greek Testament 
was printed, are those, which are afforded by the 
evidence of the Complutensian text itself. And 
this internal evidence directly contradicts the 
assertion of the editors in respect to the an¬ 
tiquity of their manuscripts. For wherever 
modern Greek manuscripts, manuscripts written 
in the thirteenth, fourteenth, or fifteenth cen¬ 
turies, differ from the most ancient Greek 
manuscripts, and from- the quotations of the 
early Greek fathers, in such characteristic read¬ 
ings the Complutensian Greek Testament almost 
invariably agrees with the modern, in opposition 
to the ancient manuscripts. There cannot be 
a doubt therefore, that the Complutensian text 
was formed from modern manuscripts alone. 


LECTURE III. 


97 


The only cause of hesitation on this subject 
was removed about twenty years ago. As the 
editors had boasted of valuable manuscripts, sent 
to them from the Vatican Library, it was 
formerly thought not improbable, that the very 
ancient manuscript marked in the Vatican 
Library 1209, and distinguished by the name of 
The Vatican Manuscript, was one of the number. 
And as only imperfect extracts from this manu¬ 
script had been printed till very lately, we had 
not sufficient data to ascertain the question. But 
in 1788 Professor Birch of Copenhagen published, 
in his edition of the four Gospels, complete 
extracts from this manuscript. Now since the 
Complutensian is the first printed edition of the 
Greek Testament, since the text of this edition 
has had great influence on subsequent editions, 
and it is therefore important to determine the 
value of its readings, I have taken the pains 
to collate the Complutensian edition with those 
extracts from the Vatican manuscript; but have 
never found in it a reading peculiar to that 
manuscript. That manuscript therefore could 
not have been used for the Complutensian 
edition: for, if it had, the influence of such 
a manuscript must have been sometimes apparent. 
And even were this conclusion erroneous, the 
result would be still the same: for, if it were 
true, that the Complutensian editors had the 
G 


98 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

use of the Vatican manuscript, yet, if they 
never followed it, except where it harmonized 
with modern manuscripts, the effect is the same, 
as if they had never used it at all. Whatever 
zeal then may have been displayed both by 
Cardinal Ximenes, and by the learned men, 
who assisted him, their edition contributed little 
or nothing toward the restoring of the purity of 
the Greek text. 

The other principal editors of the sixteenth 
century were Erasmus, Robert Stephens, and 
Beza. But a description of their editions, and 
of the gradual formation of that text, which is 
now in common use, must he deferred to the 
following Lecture. 





CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


LECTURE IV. 

In the preceding Lecture was given an ac¬ 
count of the Complutensian edition of the Greek 
Testament, as far as it could he collected from 
the imperfect data, which now remain. The next 
edition, which demands our attention, is the first 
edition by Erasmus, of which we are enabled to 
give a much more minute description, because we 
are much better acquainted, both with the ma¬ 
terials, of which it was composed, and with the 
manner, in which those materials were applied. 
A minute description of this edition is likewise 
of much greater consequence, as its influence on 
subsequent editions was much greater, than that 
of the Complutensian. It was printed at Basel, 
or Bale, in Switzerland in 1516, and was the 
first - published, though not the' first - printed 
edition of the Greek Testament. 

The Greek manuscripts, which were used by 
Erasmus for this edition, amounted to four, beside 


100 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


a manuscript of Theophylact, containing his com¬ 
mentary on the Gospels, the Acts, and the 
Epistles, accompanied with the Greek text. 
Three of those four manuscripts are still pre¬ 
served in the Public Library at Bale; but the 
fourth is at present unknown. It must not 
however be supposed, that those four manu¬ 
scripts were four copies of the whole Greek 

Testament: for Greek manuscripts contain usually 
only parts of it. Indeed three of Erasmus’s 
manuscripts, when put together made only one 
copy of the New Testament, the first containing 
only the Gospels, the second only the Acts and 
the Epistles, and the third only the hook of 

Revelation. From these three manuscripts, con¬ 
stituting one copy of the whole, he printed his 
Greek Testament; hut not from these manu¬ 
scripts unaltered. Before he sent them to the 

press, he made many corrections; and these 
corrections were founded, partly on his fourth 
manuscript, partly on his manuscript of Theo¬ 
phylact, partly on the authority of the Vulgate, 
and partly on his own conjecture. 

The value of this edition must depend, first 
on the value of its materials, and secondly on 
the mode of employing those materials. Now 
his manuscript of the Gospels, which is one of 
the three now preserved at Bale, is so modern 


LECTURE IV. 


101 


a manuscript, that according to Wetstein, it was 
written in the fifteenth century, and therefore 
not long before it was used by Erasmus. The 
manuscript from which he printed the Acts and 
the Epistles, (another of the three now preserved 
at Bale) is likewise a modern manuscript, though 
according to Wetstein, who examined them both, 
it is older, than the former. 

The Greek manuscript of the Revelation, 
which was used by Erasmus, belonged at that 
time, to Capnio: but all the efforts of the 
learned to discover where it is now preserved, 
have been hitherto fruitless. The character, 
which Erasmus himself has given of this manu¬ 
script is so high in respect to its antiquity, as 
to make it almost coeval with the Apostles 
themselves. “ Tantce vetustatis ,” says Erasmus 
to Stunica, “ ut apostolorum cetate scriptum 
videri p>ossit.” But this declaration must be 
construed with the same latitude, as the similar 
declaration of the Complutensian editors. For in 
this very manuscript the Greek text was accom¬ 
panied with the commentary of Arethas: and 
Arethas, according to Fabricius, a name of great 
authority in the literary history of Greek writers, 
was subsequent to the apostolic age by no less 
a period, than nine hundred years. 


102 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

The Greek documents, which Erasmus applied 
to the correction of the manuscripts, from which 
he printed his edition, were, his fourth manuscript, 
and his manuscript of Theophylact. His fourth 
manuscript, which is the third of the three pre¬ 
served at Bale, is at least of respectable antiquity, 
for it was written in the tenth century, and, as 
it contains the whole New Testament, except the 
Revelation, it might have afforded him consider¬ 
able service. But Erasmus made very little use 
of it, as he himself relates in his answer to 
Stunica, because he suspected, though it appears 
unjustly, that it contained readings derived from 
the Latin Vulgate. The chief source of his cor¬ 
rections therefore was the text and commentary 
of Theophylact. But Theophylact was the last of 
the Greek fathers: he lived at the end of the 
eleventh century: and his quotations from the 
Greek Testament are not to be compared, in 
deciding the authenticity of a reading, with the 
quotations of the early fathers. In the book of 
Revelations, Erasmus had no other Greek docu¬ 
ment, than the manuscript, from which he printed. 
He corrected therefore from conjecture where that 
manuscript was inaccurate: and where it was 
defective, as especially at the end, where the six 
last verses were wanting, he supplied the defect 
by Greek of his own making from the Latin 
Vulgate. 


LECTURE IV. 


103 


If we may judge from the title-page, Erasmus 
had likewise at least occasional recourse to the 
writings of Origen, Chrysostom, and Cyril. But 
it is hardly possible that Erasmus should have 
derived many readings from their works, especially 
from the works of Origen and Cyril, in which 
the quotations from the Bible are indiscriminately 
scattered, and of which there was no edition at 
that time provided with those convenient indexes, 
which now enable a collector of various readings 
to turn in an instant to any passage of Scripture. 
In fact no edition of those fathers had then been 
printed in Greek: for the editions of Origen, 
Chrysostom, and Cyril, which were then in 
print, were only in a Latin translation. 

But there is another source of sacred criticism, 
of which Erasmus made considerable use, though 
it is the last source, from which we should sup¬ 
pose, that an editor would have drawn, who had 
objected to the use of a Greek manuscript on 
the ground of its readings being formed from 
the Latin Vulgate. One should hardly suppose, 
that the same editor would have had recourse 
to the Latin Vulgate, for assistance in the for¬ 
mation of his own text. Perhaps however he 
acted more from necessity than choice. When 
he published his Greek Testament, the Latin 
Vulgate had for ages been the oracle of the 


104 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


Church of Rome: and to have published a New 
Testament, without shewing some regard for this 
oracle, might have exposed him to more em¬ 
barrassment, than all his learning could have 
removed. 

Lastly, the time which was employed in the 
execution of this work, bore no proportion to the 
magnitude of the undertaking. The first appli¬ 
cation to Erasmus on this subject was made in 
a letter from Rhenanus bearing date the 17th of 
April 1515: and this application was repeated 
on the 30th of April. Now the edition itself, 
as appears from the subscription, was finished in 
the following February, Even therefore were it 
begun immediately on the second application, 
which from other circumstances there is reason 
to doubt, it could not have employed more than 
nine months, both in the preparation for it, and 
in the printing of it. And Erasmus had not 
merely Greek materials to arrange; he had to 
correct a Latin version, which he published in 
a parallel column with the Greek ; he had also 
to furnish a considerable body of annotations. 
Nor must it be forgotten, that he was engaged 
at the same time, in the publication of Jerom’s 
works, which alone would have been sufficient 
to have occupied his whole attention. If it be 
asked, why Erasmus, under such circumstances. 


LECTURE IV. 


105 


was so precipitate in tlie publication of the Greek 
Testament, the answer is, that in this respect 
Erasmus was not his own master. He had been 
engaged by Frohenius, a printer and bookseller 
at Bale, to publish a Greek Testament for a cer¬ 
tain sum, and under certain conditions. And 
the profits of Frohenius, as a bookseller, depended 
at that time on expedition; they depended on 
his edition being finished, before the Compluten- 
sian, already printed, was delivered to the public. 

Such is the history of the first edition by 
Erasmus, of which it was necessary to give a 
minute description, as it is the basis of all the 
subsequent editions. 

In three years from the publication of the 
first edition, Erasmus published a second: and 
as in the mean time he had an opportunity of 
consulting other Greek manuscripts, or of receiv¬ 
ing extracts from his friends, he made numerous 
alterations in his second edition, which according 
to the account of Dr. Mill, amount at least to 
four hundred. And in 1522 he published a 
third edition, in which was added the seventh 
verse in the fifth chapter of St. John’s first 
Epistle, which he had not printed in his two 
former editions, because it was not contained in 
his Greek manuscripts. 


106 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


These three editions were published by Eras¬ 
mus before he had seen the Complutensian 
Greek Testament, which though printed in 1514, 
remained, through the death of Cardinal Xime- 
nes, more than eight years unpublished at Alcala. 
But when Erasmus published his fourth edition 
in 1527 he availed himself of the Compluten¬ 
sian, especially in the book of Revelation, where 
he had only one manuscript, and that a defec¬ 
tive one. According to Dr. Mill’s account, in 
the Prolegomena to his Greek Testament, Eras¬ 
mus corrected his text of the Revelation in 
ninety places from the Complutensian edition, 
but in only twenty-six places in all the other 
books. The fifth and last edition by Erasmus 
was printed in 1535: but, according to the same 
authority, it differs in only four places from the 
preceding. 

In the interval, which elapsed between the 
first and the last edition of Erasmus, nine or ten 
other editions of the Greek Testament were 
printed, which were all taken with a few alter¬ 
ations from some one of the editions of Erasmus, 
with the exception of the edition by Colinseus, 
which was printed at Paris in 1534. The text 
of this edition was formed partly from the Com¬ 
plutensian edition, partly from the editions of 
Erasmus, and partly from Greek manuscripts, 


LECTURE IV. 


107 


which were collated for that purpose. But as 
the editor, (which was often the case in the 
early editions of the Greek Testament) gave no 
account of the sources, from which he derived 
his materials, it was suspected, that all those 
readings, which were contained neither in the 
Complutensian, nor in the Erasmian editions, 
readings which according to Dr. Mill amount to 
more than seven hundred and fifty, had no other 
foundation, than critical conjecture. It has been 
since discovered, that those readings were taken 
from Greek manuscripts: three of them are still 
preserved at Paris, and have been collated by 
Wetstein and Griesbach. The edition of Coli- 
naeus therefore is entitled to great respect. But 
partly in consequence of the suspicion just men¬ 
tioned, partly in consequence of the superior 
though undeserved reputation of the editions pub¬ 
lished at Paris, a few years afterwards, by his 
son-in-law Robert Stephens, the edition of Coli- 
naeus was neglected, it was never reprinted, and 
has had no influence on the modern editions of 
the Greek Testament. 

No editions have been attended with greater 
celebrity, than the editions of Robert Stephens, 
a learned bookseller and printer at Paris, and 
father of the still more learned Henry Stephens. 
His two first editions are as distinguished by 


108 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


the elegant neatness, as the third and chief edi¬ 
tion by the splendor of its typographical execu¬ 
tion. These qualities greatly contributed toward 
bringing them into general circulation : and the 
critical pretensions, which were assumed by the 
editor, seemed to stamp on them an indelible 
value. In the preface to the first edition, which 
was printed at Paris in 1546, says Robert Ste¬ 
phens, “ Having obtained from the royal library 
several manuscripts, which from their appearance 
of antiquity are almost entitled to adoration 
(codices vetutatis specie pene adorandos) I have 
formed from them this edition in such a man¬ 
ner, as not to print even a single letter, which 
is not confirmed by the greater, and better part 
of them.” But with all this ostentation, Robert 
Stephens’s first edition is little more, than a com¬ 
pilation from the Complutensian and the fifth 
edition of Erasmus. His second edition, which 
was printed in 1549, is in respect to its exterior 
a close resemblance of the first; nor even in 
respect to its text is it materially different. 
But these editions had very little influence on 
the subsequent editions of the Greek Testament, 
an influence reserved for the folio edition, which 
appeared in the following year. 

The text of this folio edition, printed in 1550, 
was once supposed to have been formed entirely 


LECTURE IV. 


109 


on the authority of Greek manuscripts, which 
Robert Stephens, in the Preface to it, professes 
to have collated for that purpose a second and 
even a third time. But it is so far from having 
been formed on their authority, that, except in 
the hook of Revelation, it is hardly any thing 
more than Erasmus’s fifth edition reprinted. And 
even in the book of Revelation, where he often 
departs from Erasmus, he departs only for the 
sake of Complutensian readings. In fact Ste¬ 
phens himself has openly contradicted his own 
declarations: for in the margin of this edition 
there are more than a hundred places, in which 
he has quoted all his authorities for readings dif¬ 
ferent from his own . With this glaring evidence, 
evidence which requires no collation of manu¬ 
scripts, but only a superficial view of the edition 
itself, in order to be perceived, it is extraordinary 
that credit was ever attached to the pretensions 
of the editor on the formation of the text. 

There is another point of view, from which 
this edition must be examined, and in which it 
distinguishes itself from all preceding editions, 
namely the critical apparatus displayed in the 
margin. This critical apparatus consists of quo¬ 
tations from the Complutensian edition, and from 
fifteen Greek manuscripts. Now the Compluten¬ 
sian edition differs from that of Stephens in 


110 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


more than thirteen hundred places, of which 
Stephens has totally neglected at least seven 
hundred; and those, which he has noticed, are 
often quoted falsely. The same objection applies 
to the quotations from his other documents as 
far as they have been compared: and Dr. Mill 
says with great propriety of the collection of 
readings exhibited in Stephens’s margin, “ in 
pompam magis quam in usum congesta videtur .” 

But the inward defects of this edition were 
overlooked for its outward beauties. There was 
also a religious motive, which operated in its 
favour. In England, in Holland, and in Swit¬ 
zerland, the edition was esteemed for the sake 
of the editor, who became a convert to the 
Protestant cause, and fled on that account from 
Paris to settle at Geneva, in the neighbourhood 
of Calvin and Beza. 

The next revision of the Greek text was un¬ 
dertaken by Beza, who like Robert Stephens was 
a native of France, and fled to Switzerland on 
account of his religion. The critical materials, 
which he employed, were for the most part the 
same, as those which had been used by Robert 
Stephens. But he had likewise the advantage 
of that very ancient manuscript of the Gospels 
and the Acts, which he afterwards sent to this 


LECTURE IV. 


Ill 


University, and which is known by the name 
of the Codex Bezae. He had likewise a very 
ancient manuscript of St. Paul’s Epistles, which 
he procured from Clermont in France, and which 
is known by the name of the Codex Claromon- 
tanus. Lastly, he had the advantage of the 
Syriac version, which had been lately published 
by Tremellius with a close Latin translation. 

But the use, which he made of his materials, 
were not such, as might have been expected from 
a man of Beza’s learning. Instead of applying his 
various readings to the emendation of the text , he 
used them chiefly for polemical purposes in his 
notes. In short he amended Stephens’s text in 
not more than fifty places: and even these 
emendations were not always founded on proper 
authority. 

We now come to the Elzevir edition of 1624, 
in which was established the text, that is now in 
daily use. The person who conducted this edition 
(for Elzevir was only the printer) is at present 
unknown: but whoever he was, his critical 
exertions were confined within a narrow compass. 
The text of this edition was copied from Beza’s 
text, except in about fifty places; and in these 
places, the -readings were borrowed partly from 
the various readings in Stephens’s margin, partly 


112 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


from other editions, but certainly not from Greek 
manuscripts. 

The textus receptus therefore, or the text in 
common use, was copied, with a few exceptions 
from the text of Beza. Beza himself closely fol¬ 
lowed Stephens: and Stephens (namely in his 
third and chief edition) copied solely from the 
fifth edition of Erasmus, except in the Revelation, 
where he followed sometimes Erasmus, sometimes 
the Complutensian edition. The text therefore in 
daily use resolves itself at last into the Complu¬ 
tensian and the Erasmian editions. But neither 
Erasmus nor the Complutensian editors printed 
from ancient Greek manuscripts: and the re¬ 
mainder of their critical apparatus included little 
more than the latest of the Greek fathers, and 
the Latin Vulgate. 



CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


LECTURE V. 

The History of the Criticism employed on 
the Greek Testament, which was divided into 
two periods/ the one ending with the year 1624, 
the other continuing from that time to the 
present day, has been conducted to the end of 
the former period, when the text of the Greek 
Testament acquired, in the first Elzevir edition, 
a consistency, which it has in general preserved. 
That is, the editions of the Greek Testament 
printed since the year 1624 have, with a few 
exceptions hereafter to he mentioned, been copied 
word for word from the Elzevir edition of that 
year: whence the text of that edition has ac¬ 
quired the title of textus receptus. 

The gradual formation of this text out of the 
primary editions by Erasmus and the Complu- 
tensian editors, with the stages, through which it 
passed before its final settlement, was sufficiently 
described in the third and fourth Lectures to 
enable the hearer to form a competent judge- 
H 


114 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


ment, in regard to its critical correctness, or, in 
other words, in regard to the question, whether 
it approaches as nearly to the autographs of the 
sacred writers, as we are able, and therefore in 
duty bound to advance it. Now the further we 
proceed, the more clearly shall we perceive the 
necessity of greater improvement; and the his¬ 
tory of the latter period, on which we now enter, 
will fully confirm the inference deduced from 
the history of the former. 

The subject, which demands our first attention 
in the history of the latter period, is the celebrated 
London Polyglot, a work, which confers immortal 
honour, as well on the nation at large, as on 
the learned men who were engaged in it; whose 
merit indeed is the more conspicuous, as it was 
undertaken and completed at a time, when the 
study of theology in s this country was immersed 
in the metaphysical depths of puritanical dis¬ 
quisition. It was projected, and with the as¬ 
sistance of several other distinguished scholars, 
was executed by Brian Walton, formerly of 
Peter-House in this University. It consists of 
six folio volumes: and the printing of them was 
finished in the year before Cromwell died. 

As an appendage, was added in two more 
folio yolumes that inestimable work, the Lexicon 


LECTURE V. 


115 


Heptaglotton, by Edmund Castle of Emmanuel 
College, Arabic Professor in this University, and 
Walton’s chief assistant in the Polyglot itself. 
As a general description of this splendid perfor¬ 
mance would be foreign to the present Lecture, 
I must refer my hearers, who wish for further 
information, as well on the London Polyglot, 
as on the Antwerp and Paris Polyglots which 
preceded it, to the Bibliotheca sacra of Le Long. 
We are at present concerned only with the text 
of the Greek Testament, and with the critical 
apparatus, which accompanied that text. Now 
the text itself, (which is contained in the fifth 
volume) is a re-impression of the folio edition by 
Robert Stephens, which Walton adopted in pre¬ 
ference to the Elzevir text, because he embodied 
in his own work the various readings in Stephens’s 
margin, which being adapted to Stephens’s text 
might often be no various readings to any other. 
The importance therefore of the London Polyglot, 
as far as it relates to our present history, is con¬ 
fined to the materials , which it afforded for the 
purpose of future emendation. 

The materials derived from Greek authorities 
comprise a collection of extracts from sixteen 
Greek manuscripts, in addition to the readings 
which had been quoted by Stephens. For the 
collation of these manuscripts, as also on many 


116 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

other accounts, Walton was greatly indebted to 
Archbishop Usher. They are described at the 
head of the collation in the sixth volume by 
Walton himself: and a further account of them 
is given in the Prolegomena to Mill’s Greek 
Testament. 

But the extracts from Greek Manuscripts were 
neither the sole nor the chief materials, which 
the Polyglot afforded for the emendation of the 
Greek text. We have already seen, that the 
ancient versions of the New Testament are another 
source of various readings: and this source was 
opened more amply and more usefully in the 
London Polyglot, than in any of those, which 
had preceded. In addition to the Latin Vulgate, 
it contains the Syriac, the Arabic, and the 
Ethiopic versions of the New Testament, with 
the Persian in the Gospels. And these oriental 
versions are not only arranged in the most con¬ 
venient manner, for the purpose of comparing 
them with the Greek, but they are accompanied 
with literal Latin translations, that even they, 
who are unacquainted with the oriental languages, 
might still have recourse to them for various 
readings, though indeed with less security, as 
every translator is liable to make mistakes. For 
a more particular account of those oriental 
versions, and for the mode of applying them to 


LECTURE V. 


117 


the criticism of the Greek Testament, I must 
refer my hearers to the Introduction of Michaelis, 
where the subject is treated with equal fulness 
and perspicuity. 

As the temper of the times, in which the 
Polyglot appeared, was ill-adapted to calm inves¬ 
tigation, we need not he surprised that it met 
with a partial opposition. Dr. John Owen, one 
of the most distinguished among the puritanical 
Divines under the government of Cromwell, soon 
attacked it in his “ Considerations on the Pro¬ 
legomena and Appendix of the late Biblia 
Polyglotta,” which he gave as an addition to 
two other tracts printed at Oxford in 1659. In 
the same year it was answered by Walton in a 
pamphlet entitled “The Considerator considered; 
or a brief View of certain Considerations upon 
the Biblia Polyglotta, the Prolegomena and the 
Appendix thereof, wherein amongst other things 
the certainty, integrity, and divine authority of 
the original texts is defended against the con¬ 
sequences of Atheists, Papists, Antiscripturists, 
&c. inferred, from the various readings, and 
novelty of the Hebrew points, by the author of 
the said Considerations.” The Restoration, which 
soon followed, put an end to the controversy; 
and within a few months after Charles the 
Second’s return, Dr. Walton was promoted to 


118 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


the see of Chester. The prejudices, excited by 
Owen’s pamphlet, and the false conclusions, which 
he drew from that variety of readings unavoidably 
resulting from a multiplication of copies, did not 
indeed immediately subside: but those prejudices 
and apprehensions were at least mitigated by 
the endeavours of Dr. Fell, who published, as 
he relates in his Preface, an edition of the 
Greek Testament for that purpose. 

But before we proceed to Dr. Fell’s edition, 
the order of time requires that we should notice 
a critical edition, which was published at Amster¬ 
dam in the year after the London Polyglot. It 
is known by the name of the edition of Curcel- 
laeus, and is one of the most beautiful, as well 
as one of the most correctly printed, among the 
small editions of the Greek Testament. The 
editor does not appear, when the work was 
printed, to have seen the London Polyglot. 
Indeed it is hardly possible that he should: for 
though this edition hears the date of 1658, and 
the Polyglot that of 1657, yet, as the Preface, 
which is always the last thing printed, is dated 
the eighth of January, the work itself must have 
been printed in the year preceding. It contains 
however a selection of readings sufficiently copious 
for the time and circumstances of the publica¬ 
tion, a selection derived partly from former 


LECTURE Y; 


119 


collections, partly from printed editions, and 
partly from manuscripts collated on purpose for 
the edition in question. These manuscripts are 
described by the editor in his Preface, which on 
other accounts deserves our attention, especially 
for its excellent remarks in vindication of such 
literary labours. It is one of the Elzevir edi¬ 
tions, and contains precisely the same text, 
as the other editions, which issued from that 
press. 

The edition of the Greek Testament, which 
was published by Dr. Fell, then Dean of Christ 
Church, and shortly afterwards Bishop of Ox¬ 
ford, was printed in 1675 in one volume octavo. 
Dr. Fell of course availed himself of the collec¬ 
tions already formed, in the London Polyglot, 
and the edition of Curcellaeus; which he aug¬ 
mented by the addition of readings from twelve 
Bodleian, four Dublin, and two Paris manu¬ 
scripts. He further added the extracts from 
twenty-two Greek manuscripts, which Caryophi- 
lus had collated at Rome, by order of Pope 
Urban VIII. for an edition of the Greek Testa¬ 
ment, which was intended to be, but never was 
published. The extracts however were printed 
by themselves, and in sufficient time to enable 
Dr. Fell to apply them to the purpose of his 
own edition. He likewise added various readings 


120 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

from manuscripts of the Coptic and Gothic ver¬ 
sions of the New Testament, which were sup¬ 
plied by Dr. Thomas Marshall, Rector of Lincoln 
College. Dr. Fell’s edition therefore contained 
a more ample apparatus, than any preceding edi¬ 
tion : and it was reprinted, twice at Leipzig, and 
once at Oxford, the last of which is known by 
the name of Gregory’s edition. But Gregory’s 
edition, though of greater magnitude than its 
prototype, contains no accession of critical mate¬ 
rials. 

We now come to a period in the history of 
sacred criticism, which may be considered as the 
commencement of its manhood. Bishop Fell, 
notwithstanding the superiority of his own edi¬ 
tion, was so sensible, that much more remained 
to he performed, in order to obtain a genuine 
text, that he determined to promote a new edition. 
He was likewise so well aware of the labour, 
which it would cost, and the many years, which 
it would employ, to collect, arrange, and apply 
the materials, which he perceived were wanting, 
that he deemed his own life insufficient for the 
purpose, and resolved therefore to delegate the 
task to some biblical scholar, whose age might 
afford an expectation of living to complete it. 
He selected for that purpose Dr. John Mill, 
then Fellow of Queen’s College in Oxford, and 


LECTURE Y. 


121 


afterwards Principal of Edmund Hall. The 
history of this edition is related at large by 
Dr. Mill himself in his Prolegomena. The pre¬ 
paration of the materials, and the printing of 
the work, employed not less than thirty years. 
It was published at Oxford in 1707: but 
Dr. Mill survived the publication of it only a 
few weeks. 

This noble edition contained, not only a much 
larger collection of readings from Greek manu¬ 
scripts, than any- former edition, but also what 
was totally wanting in former editions, a copious 
collection of quotations from the New Testament 
in the writings of the Greek Fathers, which are 
of great importance, especially the quotations 
made by the early Fathers, in ascertaining the 
authenticity of the Greek text. The extracts 
from the Coptic and the Gothic versions, which 
appeared in Bishop Fell’s edition, were revised 
and augmented ; and the various readings, both 
of the Vulgate, and of the oriental versions, 
were selected from the London Polyglot. The 
variations observable in the early printed editions 
were likewise noted. But, with all this critical 
apparatus, the learned editor made no alterations 
in the text, which he printed, as it was given in 
the London Polyglot, from the folio edition of 
Robert Stephens. He left to future critics the 


122 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

application of the materials which he provided, 
though he frequently delivered his own opinion, 
in the Prolegomena, and in the Notes. 

We are greatly indebted to Dr. Mill for 
having supplied us with such ample means of 
obtaining a more correct edition of the Greek 
Testament. But his labours were misunderstood 
and misrepresented by his contemporaries. The 
appearance of so many thousand various readings 
(they are said to amount to thirty thousand) 
excited an alarm for the safety of the New Tes¬ 
tament : and those very materials, which had 
been collected for the purpose of producing a 
correct, an unadulterated text, were regarded as 
the means of undermining its authority. The 
text in daily use, originally derived from modern 
manuscripts, and transmitted through Stephens 
and Beza into the Elzevir editions, was at that 
time supposed to have already attained its high¬ 
est perfection; and was regarded in the same 
light, as if Erasmus had printed from the auto¬ 
graphs of the sacred writers. The possibility of 
mistakes in transcribing the Greek Testament, 
the consequent necessity of making the copies of 
it subservient to mutual correction, and hence 
the inference, that the probability of obtaining 
an accurate copy is increased by the frequency 
of comparison, did not occur to those, who were 


LECTURE Y. 


123 


offended at Dr. Mill’s publication. They were 
not aware, that the genuine text of the sacred 
writers could not exclusively he found in any 
modern manuscript, from which the first editor 
of a Greek Testament might accidentally print: 
they were not aware that the truth lies scattered 
among them all, and must be collected from them 
all. Still less were they aware, that those very 
readings, which excited their apprehensions, were 
the means, not only of ascertaining the genuine¬ 
ness of words and phrases, but also, as will be 
shewn hereafter, of proving the authenticity of 
whole books. 

Three years had not elapsed, when Dr. Whit¬ 
by, the well-known and justly esteemed com¬ 
mentator on the New Testament, published in 
opposition to it, an elaborate work, entitled Ex - 
amen variantium Lectionum Johannis Millii, 
which was first printed in London in 1710, and 
was afterwards annexed to Whitby’s Commen¬ 
tary on the New Testament. In this Examen 
the author argues, as if every printed word were 
precisely the same, as it was originally written; 
he asserts that in all places the reading of the 
common text may be defended, in Us omnibus 
lectionem textus defendi posse. And this pal- 
pably-false position, set forth in the title-page 
itself, he made the basis of a severe and bitter 


124 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


criticism on a work, which he was unable to 
appreciate. 

The well-meaning but ill-judged remarks of 
Whitby were soon applied by Anthony Collins 
in his Discourse of Free Thinking, to a very 
different purpose: for he quoted the Preface to 
Whitby’s Examen, in order to shew, that the 
very text of the Greek Testament was uncertain 
and precarious. But the arguments of Collins 
against Divine Revelation, and the mistaken 
notions of Whitby, on which those arguments 
were founded, were soon confuted by the most 
acute critic, not only of this nation, but of all 
Europe. I mean Dr. Richard Bentley, who re¬ 
plied to Collins under the assumed title of Phi- 
leleutherus Lipsiensis. This reply of Bentley 
was first printed in 1713, the same year with 
Collins’s Discourse: it has frequently been re¬ 
printed ; it has been translated into several of 
the foreign languages, and should be studied by 
every man, who is desirous of forming just 
notions of biblical criticism. Indeed Dr. Francis 
Hare, afterwards Bishop of Chichester, made his 
public acknowledgements in a pamphlet printed 
in the same year, entitled “ The Clergyman’s 
Thanks to Phileleutherus.” 


That Dr. Mill’s edition however had its 


LECTURE V. 


125 


defects, is certainly not to be denied: but they 
were chiefly defects, which were inseparable from 
the nature of the undertaking, and from the 
circumstances, in which the editor was placed. 
Among the manuscripts collated for Mill’s edition 
were many, which could not be collated by Mill 
himself: and if the extracts from such manu¬ 
scripts are any where defective or erroneous, the 
fault is not the editor’s, but the collator’s. And 
if the opinions, which he has frequently expressed 
on the genuineness of readings, are sometimes 
inaccurate, we must recollect, that he was the 
first editor, who undertook a critical edition of 
the Greek Testament on so large a scale. And 
if those opinions had been more frequently inac¬ 
curate than they are, we should further remem¬ 
ber, first that he produced the evidence on which 
those opinions were founded, thus enabling the 
reader to judge for himself, and secondly that 
he never suffered his opinions to influence the 
text. The greatest defect in Mill’s Greek 
Testament consists in the quotations from the 
oriental versions, which Mill did not under¬ 
stand, at least not sufficiently to collate them. 
He had recourse therefore to the Latin trans¬ 
lations of them in the London Polyglot, and 
consequently erred, whenever those translations 
were not sufficiently exact. But these defects, 
with the similar defects in the edition of Ben- 


1 26 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


gelius, hereafter to be noticed, have been all 
corrected by Professor Bode of Helmstadt, in 
his work rather harshly entitled, Pseudo-critica, 
Millio-Bengelianci. 

Three years after the publication of Mill’s 
Greek Testament at Oxford, it was reprinted 
at Amsterdam under the direction of Ludolph 
Kiister. Whatever readings were given in the 
Appendix to the Oxford edition, as coming too 
late for insertion under the text, were in this 
second edition transferred to their proper places: 
and the critical apparatus was augmented by the 
readings of twelve Greek manuscripts, some of 
which indeed had been previously, but imper¬ 
fectly collated. 

In the year following, namely in 1711, Gerard 
of Mastricht published (likewise at Amsterdam) 
an octavo edition of the Greek Testament, with 
readings selected, not from Mill’s, but from Fell’s 
edition, and a small accession of new matter, 
consisting of readings from a manuscript in the 
Imperial Library at Vienna. As the editor 
gave only the initials of his name and title, and 
the edition was published by Henry Wetstein, 
a printer and bookseller at Amsterdam, it im¬ 
properly acquired in this country the name of 
Wetstein’s edition: and hence the octavo edition 


LECTURE V. 


127 


by Gerard of Maastricht is sometimes confounded 
with the edition of Professor John James Wet- 
stein, which was published forty years afterwards 
in two volumes folio. 

The editions hitherto described in the present 
Lecture have all contributed to augment the 
stock of materials; but they left the text itself 
unaltered. The first editor, who applied Mill’s 
critical apparatus to the emendation of the Greek 
text, was Dr. Edward Wells, Hector of Cotes- 
bach in Leicestershire, who published an edition 
of the Greek Testament at Oxford, in separate 
portions, and at different times between 1713 and 
1718. It is accompanied with the common 
English version, corrected by the editor. To 
prevent mistakes I will describe the editor’s plan 
in his own words. He says on the title-page 
that this edition contains, “ I. The original or 
Greek text amended according to the best and 
most ancient readings. II. The common English 
translation rendered more agreeable to the ori¬ 
ginal.” It is further accompanied with a para¬ 
phrase and annotations, on which account it is 
generally classed, not among the editions of the 
Greek Testament, but among the commentaries 
on it. But as it exhibits a corrected text of the 
Greek Testament, it claims also a place in the 
present description, though subsequent improve- 


128 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


ftients ill sacred criticism have in a great measure 
superseded the emendations of Dr. Wells. 

In 1729 was printed in London another 
edition of the Greek Testament, with a new 
text, and an English translation, in which the 
editor professed to have founded his alterations 
on the authority of Greek manuscripts. It was 
soon discovered that those professions were false ; 
and the edition has been long consigned to me¬ 
rited oblivion. 

But in 1734 a very respectable attempt to 
improve the sacred text was made by Bengel, 
or, as he is commonly called in England, Ben- 
gelius, Professor at the University of Tubingen 
in Suabia. In that year he published a quarto 
edition of the Greek Testament, to which he 
prefixed an Introductio in Crisin Novi Testa - 
mentis and subjoined an Apparatus criticus. 
But the prejudices of that age in respect to 
sacred criticism, of which we have seen an 
instance in Whitby’s Examen, restricted Ben- 
gelius in the exercise of his judgement, and im¬ 
posed on him a law, which defeated in numerous 
instances the very object of his revision. If the 
best Greek manuscripts, with the most ancient 
Fathers and Versions, agree in supporting any 
particular reading, we must conclude that it is 


LECTURE V. 


129 


tlie genuine reading, whether that reading were 
contained, or not, in the manuscripts of Erasmus 
or the Complutensian editors, whether that read¬ 
ing were contained, or not, either in their edi¬ 
tions, or in any which succeeded them. But 
such was the importance, which a reading was 
then supposed to derive from having been once 
in print, and so necessary did this stamp of 
authority appear, in order to legalise its claim to 
admission, that no reading was adopted by Ben- 
gelius, however great its critical authority, unless 
it had already received the sanction of the press. 
He himself says, “ Ne syllabam quidam , etiamsi 
mille manuscripti 9 mille critici juberent, ante - 
hac non receptam , adducar ut recipiam” But 
when he came to the Apocalypse, he departed 
from this rule: and in the other books of the 
New Testament he endeavoured to make compen¬ 
sation by placing under the text the readings, 
which he thought the most worthy of notice, 
and classing them according to their value by 
the means of Greek numerals. With respect to 
his critical apparatus, it was chiefly taken from 
Mill’s Greek Testament, to which however he 
made some important additions, consisting of ex¬ 
tracts from above twenty Greek manuscripts, and 
from several of the ancient Latin versions, to 
which were added, for the first time in this edi¬ 
tion, some extracts from the Armenian version, 

I 


130 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


But the edition of Bengelius was shortly su¬ 
perseded by the more important edition of John 
James Wetstein, who was born and educated in 
the place, where Erasmus had published his 
editions of the Greek Testament. In his twenti¬ 
eth year, while a student at Basle, he published 
a treatise, De variis Lectionibus Novi Testa - 
menti: and, when he had finished his studies, 
he visited the principal libraries of France and 
England, in search of Greek manuscripts, which 
he every where collated with great assiduity. 
The fruits of his researches, containing obser¬ 
vations, not only on Greek manuscripts, but on 
the quotations of the Greek Fathers, and on 
the ancient versions, were published four years 
before the edition of Bengelius, being printed 
at Amsterdam in 1730, by the title, Prolegomena 
ad Testamenti Grceci editionem accuratissimam , 
e vetussimis codicibus manuscriptis denuo pro - 
curandam; in qnibus agitur de codicibus manu¬ 
scriptis Novi Testamenti , scriptoribus qui Novo 
Testamento usi sunt , versionibus veteribus , 

editionibus prioribus , et claris interpretibus; et 
proponuntur Animadversiones et Cautiones, ad 
Examen variarum lectionum Novi Testamenti 
necessaries. The bare recital of the title-page is 
sufficient to shew the importance of the subjects 
discussed, and to indicate the expectations, which 
were excited from an edition of the Greek 


LECTURE V. 


131 


Testament thus announced by an author so 
distinguished, as Wetstein, by his learning and 
talents. 

But the edition itself, from various causes, 
which it is here unnecessary to relate, was re¬ 
tarded more than twenty years. It was at length 
published in 1751 and 1752, in two folio volumes, 
at Amsterdam, where Wetstein was then Pro¬ 
fessor in the College of the Remonstrants. It 
is divided into four parts, the first containing 
the Gospels, the second containing the Epistles 
of St. Paul, the third containing the Acts of 
the Apostles with the Catholic Epistles, and the 
fourth containing the Apocalypse. Each of these 
four Parts is accompanied with Prolegomena, in 
which the Greek manuscripts are described, that 
are quoted in each Part: and Wetstein’s motive 
to this four-fold division was, that it corresponds 
with the usual contents of the Greek manu¬ 
scripts, which seldom comprise the whole New 
Testament, but contain, some of them the four 
Gospels only, others only St. Paul’s Epistles, 
others again the Acts of the Apostles with the 
Catholic Epistles, and lastly others the Apo¬ 
calypse alone, though two or more of these por¬ 
tions are sometimes found united in the same 
manuscript, while on the other hand there are 
manuscripts, in which the portions are still 
I 2 


132 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


smaller. The Prolegomena to the first Part, in 
addition to the description of Greek manuscripts, 
contain an account of the ecclesiastical writers, 
and of the ancient versions, which are quoted in 
this edition. These Prolegomena, with the Ani - 
madversiones et Cautiones at the end of the 
second volume, must be studied by every man, 
who would fully appreciate the work in question, 
of which it is impossible to give an adequate 
notion in the compass of the present Lecture. 

The text of this edition is precisely the same 
with the Elzevir text, and hence it is called on 
the title-page Novum Testamentum Grcecum 
editionis receptee. Though Wetstein very con¬ 
siderably augmented the stock of critical materials, 
though he drew from various sources, which had 
hitherto remained unopened, though he collated, 
not by other hands, but by his own, and though 
few men have possessed a greater share either of 
learning or of sagacity, yet no alteration was 
made in the Greek text. He proposed indeed 
alterations, which he inserted in the space be¬ 
tween the text and the body of various readings, 
with reference to the words which he thought 
should be exchanged for them: and where a 
reading should, in his opinion, be omitted with¬ 
out the substitution of another, he prefixed to 
it a mark of minus in the text. But these 


LECTURE V. 


133 


proposed alterations and omissions are in general 
supported by powerful authority, and are such, 
as will commonly recommend themselves to an 
impartial critic. Though among the various 
readings he has occasionally noted the conjectures 
of others, he has never ventured a conjecture of 
his own: nor has he made conjecture in any one 
instance the basis of a proposed alteration. 

The charge therefore, which has been laid to 
Wetstein, of proposing (not making) alterations 
in the text for the mere purpose of obtaining 
support to a particular creed, is without founda¬ 
tion. Whether an editor is attached, or not, to 
the creed of his country, whether he receives 
pain or pleasure, when he discovers that a read¬ 
ing of the text is supported by less authority 
than a various reading, are questions, with which 
the reader is only so far concerned, as they may 
affect the conduct of the editor in his office of 
critic . The question of real importance is, Does 
the editor, whether orthodox or heterodox, suffer 
his religious opinions to influence his judgement, 
in weighing the evidence for and against any 
particular word or passage. Now men of every 
religious profession are exposed to the tempta¬ 
tion of adopting what they wish to adopt, and 
of rejecting what they wish to reject, without 
sufficient regard to the evidence against the one, 


134 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


and in favour of the other. Hence greater 
caution is certainly requisite in our admission of 
emendations, which favour the editor’s religious 
creed, than in the admission of readings uncon¬ 
nected with that creed. That is, we must be 
more careful to scrutinize, whether such emenda¬ 
tions are really supported by greater authority, 
than the readings, which it is proposed to reject. 
But then we must endeavour in this investiga¬ 
tion to abstain, on our parts, from the fault, 
which we suspect in the editor. We must not 
suffer a bias in an opposite direction to mislead 
our own judgement, to magnify or diminish 
authorities, as they are favourable or unfavour¬ 
able to the readings, which we ourselves would 
adopt. Now I have been long in the habit of 
using Wetstein’s Greek Testament; I have at 
least endeavoured to weigh carefully the evi¬ 
dence for the readings, which I have had occa¬ 
sion to examine; yet I have always found that 
the alterations proposed by Wetstein were sup¬ 
ported by respectable authority, and in general 
by much better authority, than the correspondent 
readings of the text. The merits therefore of 
Wetstein, as a critic , ought not to he impeached 
by ascribing to him undue influence in the choice 
of his readings. His merits, as a Critic, undoubt¬ 
edly surpass the merits of his predecessors : he 
alone contributed more to advance the Criticism 


LECTURE V. 


135 


of the Greek Testament, than all who had gone 
before him: and this task he performed, not only 
without support, either public or private, but 
during a series of severe trials, under which a 
mind of less energy than Wetstein’s would infal¬ 
libly have sunk. In short, he gave a new turn 
to the Criticism of the Greek Testament, and 
laid the foundation, on which later editors have 
built. That mistakes and oversights are dis¬ 
coverable in the work detracts not from its gene¬ 
ral merit. No work is without them : and least 
of all can consummate accuracy be expected, 
where so many causes of error never ceased to 

operate.-Such are Wetstein’s merits as a 

critic. As an interpreter of the New Testa¬ 
ment, in his explanatory Notes, he shews him¬ 
self in a different and less favourable light: but 
this subject must be deferred till we come to the 
second Branch of Theology. 

The emendations, which Wetstein had pro¬ 
posed ’, were adopted by Mr. Bowyer, a learned 
printer in London, who inserted them in the 
text of his edition published eleven years after¬ 
wards. And as these emendations were founded 
on the authority of Greek manuscripts, Mr. Bowyer 
gave to his edition the following title, Novum 
Testamentum Grcecum , ad Jidem Grcecorum so¬ 
lum Codicum Manuscriptorum nunc primum 


136 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

expressam, adstipulante Johcinne Jacobo Wet - 
stenio , 

The history of our second period has now 
Been conducted to the year 1763. The remain¬ 
ing and most important part of it will be given 
in the next Lecture. 



CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


LECTURE VI. 

I he preceding Lecture having concluded 
with the account of Wetstein’s emendations 
adopted in Bowyer’s edition, our attention must 
now be directed to the literary labours of Dr. 
Griesbach, Professor of Divinity at Jena in 
Saxony. The first display of his critical abi¬ 
lity was made in a short treatise on the manu¬ 
scripts of the four Gospels, which were used by 
Origen, entitled, De Codicibus quatuor Evan - 
geliorum Origenianis , published in 1771 at 
Halle in Saxony, where Griesbach had studied, 
and where he afterwards published his editions 
of the Greek Testament. 

In 1774 he published a Synopsis, or Har¬ 
mony of the three first Gospels, with an amended 
text, and a selection of various readings; to 
which were added, likewise with an amended 
text and a selection of readings, the Gospel of 
St. John, and the Acts of the Apostles. In the 


138 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


year following he published in the same manner, 
the Epistles and the Apocalypse. And, as the 
Synopsis, though in itself a very useful work, 
and deservedly republished, yet formed a con¬ 
trast with the other books of the New Testament, 
he printed in 1777 the three first Gospels entire. 
Such were the component parts of what is called 
Griesbach’s first edition of the Greek Testa¬ 
ment, of which it was necessary to give a short 
account, though our examination of Griesbach’s 
merits as a critical editor, must be reserved for 
the description of his second and more important 
edition. 

It may be useful however to observe that 
Griesbach’s object was not to supersede the edi¬ 
tion of Wetstein, which in many respects retains 
its original value. But as the purchase of two 
folio volumes, which were daily growing scarcer 
and dearer, was impracticable for students in 
general, who yet ought to be provided with some 
means of information on the existing state of 
the Greek text, he determined for that purpose 
to prepare a portable edition, which might suit 
the convenience of every reader. In the critical 
apparatus of such an edition could be expected 
only a selection of the most important readings, 
and a particular citation only of the chief autho¬ 
rities. It was sufficient that the choice was made 


LECTURE VI. 


139 


witli judgement. Both the readings and autho¬ 
rities were selected from Wetstein’s edition: 
but they were revised and augmented by subse¬ 
quent collations, of which the principal were sup¬ 
plied by Griesbach himself. And as the notion, 
that the Elzevir text required no amendment, 
had gradually subsided since the editions of Ben- 
gelius, Wetstein, and Bowyer, the selection of 
various readings, and the authorities, on which 
they were founded, were applied by Griesbach 
to the emendation of the text. With what suc¬ 
cess the application has been made, we shall con¬ 
sider hereafter, when we come to the second 
edition, of which the first volume was printed 
, after an interval of twenty , and the second after 
an interval of thirty years. 

In the mean time the stock of critical materials 
was very considerably augmented by the editions 
of Matthaei, Alter, and Birch, of which it is the 
more necessary to give some account, as the 
materials, which they provided, were all trans¬ 
ferred into Griesbach’s second edition. 

But before we proceed to the description of 
their editions, the order of time requires us at 
least to notice an edition of the Greek Testa¬ 
ment, which, though it did not furnish any new 
materials , contained a new revision of the text , 


140 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


and is therefore entitled to a place in the present 
history. I mean the edition of Dr. Harwood, of 
which the first volume was published in 1776, 
the second in 1784. Now this learned editor, 
instead of applying, like Wetstein, Bowyer, and 
Griesbach, the whole of the critical apparatus 
already provided, selected the Codex Bezae as 
his chief authority in the Gospels and the Acts, 
and the Codex Claromontanus in St. Paul’s 
Epistles. But no single manuscript, however 
ancient or respectable, can determine the question, 
whether a reading he genuine: for this determi¬ 
nation must be made by the comparative evidence 
of all our authorities. Dr. Harwood’s revision 
therefore is of little or no value. 

The edition of the Greek Testament, pub¬ 
lished by Mattliaei, who was Professor, first at 
Moscow, and afterwards at Wittenberg, was 
printed at Biga, in twelve octavo volumes, at 
different times between 1782 and 1788. This 
very learned editor, who was educated at Leipzig 
under the celebrated John Augustus Ernesti, 
commenced his work under various disadvantages, 
which had material influence on his formation 
of the Greek text. When invited from Leipzig 
to Moscow by the Empress Catharine, he had 
not directed his attention to the peculiar de¬ 
partment of sacred criticism, and was therefore 


LECTURE VI. 


141 


unacquainted with the progress, which had been 
made in this branch of learning. And when the 
numerous manuscripts of the Greek Testament, 
which he found at Moscow, especially in the 
library of the Synod, suggested the thought of 
publishing a new edition, he had no longer 
access to the works, which might have furnished 
the necessary knowledge. Neither the edition 
of Wetstein, nor even that of Mill could be 
procured in his new situation: and the only 
collection of various readings supplied there by 
any former editor, was that of Bishop Fell, as 
reprinted in Gregory’s edition. When he at¬ 
tempted therefore emendations in the received 
text, his emendations were chiefly founded on 
the authority of the manuscripts, which he him¬ 
self collated at Moscow. 

Now the Russian Church being a daughter of 
the Greek church, the Moscow manuscripts were 
of course collected from Constantinople, and other 
parts of the Greek empire. They belong there¬ 
fore to that particular class, which modern critics 
have called the Byzantine edition, and which 
cannot be entitled to the exclusive privilege of 
ascertaining what is genuine or spurious. The 
Greek Fathers who lived at Alexandria, the 
Greek manuscripts which accord with their quo¬ 
tations, and those ancient versions which liar- 


142 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


monize with both, have at least an equal claim 
to our attention. Nor ought we to decide before 
we have heard the evidence of a third class of 
manuscripts, containing the Greek text accom¬ 
panied with the ancient Latin version. The 
application therefore of the Moscow manuscripts 
alone , after Mill and Wetstein had supplied 
such a fund of materials derived from other 
sources, was an undertaking both injudicious and 
useless. It is true, that when Matthaei collected 
his own materials, he had not access to those of 
Mill or Wetstein: yet he knew at least of their 
existence , and ought not to have amended with¬ 
out them. But having done so, and having thus 
incurred the censure of men more experienced 
in sacred criticism, especially of Michaelis and 
Griesbach, he resolved to defend himself, by 
vilifying the sources, from which, when he began 
to publish, it was not in his power to draw* 
To the class of manuscripts, to which the Codex 
Bezae, the Codex Claromontanus, and others of 
high antiquity belong, he gave in his Preface 
to St. John’s Gospel the appellation of editio 
scurrilis: nor are softer epithets applied by 
him to the critics, who ventured to defend such 
manuscripts. The antipathy, which he thus ac¬ 
quired, deterred him, even after his return to 
Germany, which was before the publication of the 
four last-printed volumes, from making that use 


LECTURE VI. 


143 


of Wetstein’s edition, which it was then in his 
power to do, and which he probably would have 
done, if he had possessed it at the commencement 
of his labours. It is much to he lamented, that 
so distinguished a scholar should have been led, 
either by necessity, or by choice, to make so 
partial an application of critical materials. What¬ 
ever opinion he formed of the ?'elative value 
attached to the different classes of Greek manu¬ 
scripts, whether the opinion of Michaelis and 
Griesbach on the one hand, or of Matthsei on 
the other hand he the true one, the fact , that 
Matthaai undertook a revision of the Greek text 
on the authority of one set of manuscripts, must 
remain undisputed. And since no impartial judge 
can admit, that the genuine text of the Greek 
Testament may he established, as well by apply¬ 
ing only a part of our materials, as by a judicious 
employment of the whole, the edition of Matthaei 
is only so far of importance, as it furnishes new 
materials for future uses; materials indeed, which 
are accompanied with much useful information, 
and many learned remarks. 

About the same period, namely in 1786 and 
1787, Professor Alter at Vienna published an 
edition of the Greek Testament in two thick 
octavos. The text of this edition is neither the 
common text, nor a revision of it, but a mere copy 


144 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


from a single manuscript, and that not a very 
ancient one, in the Imperial Library at Vienna. 
The various readings, which are not arranged as 
in other editions, but are printed in separate 
parcels as first made by the collator, are likewise 
derived from Greek manuscripts in the Imperial 
Library. And the whole collection was augmented 
by extracts from the Coptic, the Slavonian, and 
the Latin versions, which are also printed in the 
same indigested manner, as the Greek readings. 
Alter’s edition therefore contained mere materials 
for future uses. 

While Matthaei was employed at Moscow and 
Alter at Vienna, Professors Birch and Adler 
were engaged by the late King of Denmark to 
travel into Italy, and Professors Moldenliawer 
and Tychsen to travel into Spain, in search of 
further materials for the criticism of the Greek 
Testament. For this purpose they examined the 
principal libraries in Venice, Florence, Bologna, 
and Borne, with the library of the Escurial in 
Spain. The produce of their researches, as far as 
relates to the four Gospels, was published by Pro¬ 
fessor Birch at Copenhagen in 1788, in a quarto 
volume, designed for the first volume of an edition 
of the Greek Testament: and in the Prolegomena 
to this volume was given a detailed account of 
the collated manuscripts. In the text of this 


LECTURE VI. 


145 


edition no alterations were made. It contains 
therefore only materials for emendation: and if 
these materials had been printed by themselves, 
the same benefit would have accrued to the public 
at a smaller expence. Indeed the various readings 
to the other books of the New Testament were 
printed by themselves, though not before 1798, 
the publication of the second volume of the 
Greek Testament, to which the editor proposed 
to annex them, having been prevented by the 
fire at Copenhagen, which destroyed the royal 
printing office. Now these extracts, with those 
printed in the former volume, contain some very 
important additions to our stock of critical 
materials. A complete collation is given of that 
distinguished manuscript, which is known by the 
name of the Codex Vaticanus, and which till 
that time, namely in the New Testament, had 
been only partially examined. Another very 
important addition consisted in the extracts from 
a Syriac version, written in a peculiar dialect, 
which Adler, who collated it at Rome, calls the 
dialect of Jerusalem. This ancient version, which 
Adler has minutely described in his Versiones 
Syriacce , published at Copenhagen in 1789, is 
chiefly remarkable for its agreement with our 
Codex Bezae. Indeed there are eleven readings, 
hitherto thought peculiar to this manuscript, 
which are all found in that ancient version. 

K 


146 CRITICISM OF THE BIBRE. 

And as the manuscript, to which it has the 
nearest affinity after the Codex Bezae, is the 
Codex Vaticanus, its critical value is decided. 

In addition to the new sources, which were 
opened in the interval between Griesbach’s first 
and second edition, must be noticed some publi¬ 
cations, which contributed to augment or improve 
the knowledge already acquired. Thus the Phi- 
loxenian version, which Wetstein had imper¬ 
fectly collated in manuscript, being printed by 
Dr. White at Oxford in 1778 (namely the four 
Gospels, for the other books were deferred more 
than twenty years), enabled Griesbach to correct 
various mistakes in the former collation, and 
make to it considerable additions. Similar ad¬ 
vantages were derived from the publication of 
some ancient Greek manuscripts, of the Codex 
Alexandrinus by Woide in London in 1786, of 
the Codex Boernerianus by Matthsei at Meissen 
in 1791, and of the Codex Bezae by Dr. Kipling 
at Cambridge in 1793. 

But after all the materials collected for the 
purpose of obtaining a correct edition of the 
Greek Testament, materials for which all the 
known libraries in Europe had been searched, 
and which it had employed nearly three centuries 
to obtain, there was still wanted an editor of 


LECTURE VI. 


147 


sufficient learning, acuteness, industry, and im¬ 
partiality in the weighing of evidence, to apply 
those materials to their proper object. Dr. Gries- 
bach, by his first edition of the Greek Testament 
had already afforded convincing proofs of his 
critical ability : and hence the learned in general, 
especially in his own country, regarded him as 
the person, who was best qualified to undertake 
this new revision of the Greek text. Indeed the 
subject had formed the business of his life. Like 
Wetstein, when he had finished his academical 
studies, he travelled into France and England, 
for the purpose of collating manuscripts of the 
New Testament. But as the stock of materials 
was then very considerably larger, than when 
Wetstein commenced his literary labours, it was 
not so much his object to increase , as to revise , 
the apparatus already provided. For this purpose 
he re-examined the most ancient manuscripts, 
wherever doubts might be entertained, and it was 
important to ascertain the truth. The peculiar 
readings, which distinguish one class of manu¬ 
scripts from another, and are the basis on which 
that classification is formed, were likewise objects 
of particular attention. But he in general disre¬ 
garded the mass of readings, which are common 
to most manuscripts, as serving rather to encum¬ 
ber, than to improve our critical apparatus. At 
the same time, whenever uncollated manuscripts 


148 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


presented themselves to his notice, he neglected 
not to extract what was worthy of attention. 
The fruits of his researches, with his remarks on 
the examined manuscripts, he published in two 
octavo volumes printed at Halle in 1785 and 1793 
under the following title, Symbolce criticce , ad 
supplendas et corrigendas variarum Novi Tes - 
tamenti lectionum collectiones: accedit multorum 
Novi Testamenti codicum Grcecorum descriptio 
et examen. This work contains the principles, 
on which Griesbach has founded his critical 
system; and consequently should be studied by 
every man, who attempts to form an estimate of 
his critical merits. 

As the quotations from the Greek Testament, 
which are scattered in the writings of the most 
ancient Greek Fathers, are of great importance in 
ascertaining the genuineness of disputed passages, 
he undertook a new and complete collation of the 
works of Origen, which he also published in his 
Symbolae criticae, accompanied with those quota¬ 
tions of Clement of Alexandria* which differed 
from the common text. 

Further, as the testimony of the most ancient 
Latin versions, such as those, which have been 
published by Blanchini and Sabatier, are, in many 
cases, important to the Greek text, he undertook 


LECTURE VI. 


149 


a new collation of those ancient versions. Of the 
Sahidic version, or the version in the dialect of 
the Upper Egypt, he quoted the readings, which 
had been furnished by Woide, Georgi, and 
Miinter. Of the Armenian version a new colla¬ 
tion was made for him by Bredenkamp of Bre¬ 
men : and the Slavonian version was collated 
for him, both in manuscript, and in print, by 
Dobrowsky at Prague.—Nor must we neglect to 
mention the fragments of two very ancient Greek 
manuscripts, preserved at Wolfenbiittel, which 
Knittel had published with his Fragment of 
the Gothic version. 

Such were the materials, which Griesbach 
applied to his second and last edition of the 
Greek Testament, in addition to the apparatus, 
which was already contained in Wetstein’s edi¬ 
tion, and which was subsequently augmented by 
the editions described in this Lecture. The first 
volume of Griesbach’s second edition, containing 
the four Gospels, was published in 1796; the 
second volume, containing the other books of the 
New Testament, was published in 1806. The 
pilace of publication was Halle, the same book¬ 
seller, who had purchased the copy-right of the 
first edition, having purchased also the copy¬ 
right of the second. And as a part of the im¬ 
pression, (which was taken off on a better paper 


150 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


sent by his Grace the Duke of Grafton) was 
destined for sale in England, the name of Lon¬ 
don as well as of Halle was put on the title- 
page. But, what is more important than either 
the paper or the place of 'publication , it was 
printed at Jena under Griesbach’s immediate 
inspection. 

There is a question however in reserve, of 
still greater consequence than the extent or the 
value even of the critical materials: and that is. 
Have those materials been properly applied to 
the emendation of the Greek text ? That they 
were conscientiously applied, is admitted by every 
man, to whom Griesbach’s character is known. His 
scrupulous integrity, as a man and as a scholar, 
is sufficient guarantee for the honest application 
of them. Nor have his contemporaries ever ques¬ 
tioned either his learning, or his judgement, if 
we except Matthaei, who wrote under the influ¬ 
ence of personal animosity. Of the emendations, 
which he has introduced, there are many, which 
had received the approbation even of the early 
editors, Erasmus and Beza; others had been 
approved by Mill; others again by Bengelius; 
and most of them by Wetstein and Bowyer. 
That on the other hand, there are many, on 
which the opinion of Griesbach differs even from 
that of Wetstein, may be explained from the 


LECTURE VI. 


151 


operation of three causes, which it is here neces¬ 
sary to assign. 

In the first place, the augmentation of the 
critical apparatus since the death of Wetstein, 
and the consequent alteration in the relative 
evidence for different readings to the same pas¬ 
sage, must in some cases have made an alteration 
in their respective claims to authenticity. Another 
difference was occasioned by the circumstance of 
Wetstein’s entertaining a suspicion, that the 
Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Bezae, and some 
other very ancient manuscripts contained a Greek 
text, which had been altered from the Latin 
version. That this suspicion is ungrounded, has 
been clearly shewn, both by Griesbach in his 
Symbolae criticae, and by Woide in his Preface 
to the Codex Alexandrinus. And it is mani¬ 
fest, that, when we are weighing our authorities, 
our decisions will be greatly affected by the rejec¬ 
tion on the one hand, or by the admission on 
the other, of such manuscripts, as those, which 
I have just mentioned. But the third cause 
was more powerful in its operation, than either 
of the preceding; and as this third cause forms 
the basis of Griesbach’s critical system, it must 
be more fully explained. 

In determining the quantum of evidence for 


152 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


or against a particular reading, the authorities 
used to be rather numbered than weighed; so 
that, if a reading were contained in thirty manu¬ 
scripts out of fifty , the scale was supposed to 
turn in its favour. It is true, that under similar 
circumstances, more importance was attached to 
ancient , than to modern manuscripts: but the 
modes of estimating that importance were so 
various, that the same premises not unfrequently 
led to different conclusions. Nor was due atten¬ 
tion paid to that necessary distinction between 
the antiquity of a manuscript , and the antiquity 
of its text . Wetstein, in his Animadversiones et 
Cautiones , annexed to his Greek Testament, 
went a great way toward the reducing of sacred 
criticism to a regular system. But much still 
remained to be performed, for which we are 
indebted to Semler, who laid the foundation, 
and to Griesbach, who raised the superstruc¬ 
ture. 

From a comparison and combination of the 
readings exhibited by Wetstein it was discovered, 
that certain characteristic readings distinguished 
certain manuscripts, fathers, and versions; that 
other characteristic readings pointed out a second 
class; others again a third class of manuscripts, 
fathers, and versions. It was further discovered, 
that this three-fold classification had an additional 


LECTURE VI. 


153 


foundation in respect to the places , where the 
manuscripts were written, the fathers lived, and 
the versions were made. Hence the three classes 
received the names of Recensio Alexandrina , 
Recensio Constantinopolitana or Ry%antina , and 
Recensio Occidentals: not that any formal 
revision of the Greek text is known, either from 
history or from tradition, to have taken place, at 
Alexandria, at Constantinople, or in Western 
Europe. But whatever causes , unknown to us, 
may have operated, in producing the effect, there 
is no doubt of its existence: there is no doubt 
that those characteristic readings are really con¬ 
tained in the manuscripts, fathers, and versions, 
and that the classification, which is founded on 
them, is founded therefore on truth. Hence arises 
a new criterion of authenticity. A majority of 
individual manuscripts can no longer be consider¬ 
ed, either as decisive, or even as very important 
on this subject. A majority of the Recensions , 
or as we should say of printed hooks, a majority 
of the Editions, is alone to be regarded, as far 
as number is concerned. The testimony of the 
individual manuscripts is applied to ascertain 
what is the reading of this or that Edition : but 
the question of fact being once determined, it 
ceases to be of consequence what number of ma¬ 
nuscripts may be produced, either of the first, 
or of the second, or of the third of those Editions. 


154 


CRITICISM or THE BIBLE. 


For instance, when we have once ascertained 
that any particular reading belongs both to the 
Alexandrine and to the Western, but not to the 
Byzantine Edition, the authority of that reading 
will not be weakened, even though it should 
appear on counting the manuscripts, that the 
number of those, which range themselves under 
the Byzantine Edition, is ten times greater, than 
that of the other two united. We must argue 
in this case, as we argue in the comparison of 
printed editions, where we simply inquire, what 
are the readings of this or that edition, and 
never think of asking for the purpose of criticism , 
how many copies were struck off at the office, 
where it was printed. The relative value of 
those three editions must likewise be considered. 
For if any one of them, the Byzantine for in¬ 
stance, to which most of the modern manuscripts 
belong, carries with it less weight than either 
of the other two, a proportional deduction must 
be made, whether it be thrown into the scale by 

itself, or in conjunction with another.--Such 

are the outlines of that system, which Griesbach 
has .applied to the criticism of the Greek Testa¬ 
ment. The subject is so new, and at the same 
time so intricate, that it is hardly possible to 
give more than a general notion of it in a public 
Lecture. It requires long and laborious investi¬ 
gation : but it is an investigation, which every 



LECTURE VI. 


155 


biblical scholar will readily undertake, when he 
considers, that it involves the question, What is 
the genuine text of the New Testament? 

As the classification of manuscripts, fathers, 
and versions, with all its concomitant circum¬ 
stances, supplies us with the rules of external 
evidence, an examination of the causes which 
produced the variations of the text, suggests the 
laws or canons of internal evidence. Thus a 
knowledge of the fact, that transcribers have in 
general been more inclined to add than to omit, 
suggests the canon, that, where different readings 
are of unequal lengths, the shorter is 'probably the 
genuine. Again a knowledge of the fact, that 
transcribers were disposed to exchange the He¬ 
braisms of the New Testament for purer Greek, 
suggests the canon, that, when of two readings 
the one is oriental , the other classical , the former 
is the genuine reading, the latter a correction. 
Further, as it is more probable that an easy 
reading should be substituted for a hard one, 
than the contrary, the latter, as far as internal 
evidence goes, deserves the preference. And 
whether alterations be ascribed to design or to 
accident, we must consider, when we meet with 
several readings to the same passage, which of 
them might most easily have given rise to the 
others. For, if by supposing that one in parti- 


156 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


cular is the ancient reading, we can account for 
the origin of the rest, and the same supposition, 
when applied to any other , affords not a similar 
solution, the reading, to which it does apply, 
acquires from this circumstance an argument in 
its favour. 

But neither external nor internal evidence 
can be estimated alone. They must be weighed 
together: and we must be careful to ascertain 
the momentum, which belongs to each. Some¬ 
times the external evidence is at variance with 
the internal: at other times the sources of 
external evidence are at variance among them¬ 
selves ; and in all these cases very extensive 
knowledge, and the most strict impartiality are 
necessary for the adjustment of their respective 
claims. 

That Griesbach has fulfilled the duties, which 
in these respects he owed to the public, that his 
diligence was unremitted, that his caution was 
extreme, that his erudition was profound, and 
that his judgement was directed by a sole regard 
to the evidence before him, will in general be 
allowed by those, who have studied his edition, 
and are able to appreciate its merits. That his 
decisions are always correct, that in all cases 
the evidence is so nicely weighed as to produce 


LECTURE VI. 


157 


unerring results, that weariness of mind under 
painful investigation has in no instance occa¬ 
sioned an important oversight, that prejudice or 
partiality has no where influenced his general 
regard for critical justice, would be affirmations, 
which can hardly apply to any editor, however 
good or great. But, if at any time he has erred, 
he has at the same time enabled those, who are 
competent judges, to decide for themselves, by 
stating the contending evidence with clearness 
and precision. Emendations founded on conjec¬ 
ture, however ingenious, he has introduced not 
in a single instance: they are all founded on 
quoted authority. Our attention is even soli¬ 
cited and directed to that authority, the adopted 
readings being always printed in smaller charac¬ 
ters than the rest of the text, and with reference 
to the rejected readings, which are printed in 
the inner margin in the same letters with the 
text, while both of them refer to the respective 
evidence, which is produced below. If readings 
are added, where none existed before, or are with¬ 
drawn without substitution, the changes are 
marked with equal clearness, and are equally sup¬ 
ported by critical authority. When the evidence 
is not sufficiently decisive to warrant an altera¬ 
tion in the text, the readings worthy of notice 
are placed in the inner margin, with different 
marks expressive of their different claims. 


158 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


Whoever proposes to use this edition (and it 
should be used by every biblical scholar) will find 
in the Prolegomena a more complete description, 
both of the critical apparatus, and of the mode of 
applying it. I have been already so diffuse on 
this subject, that it is time to close it. But let 
not the attention, which has been given to it, be 
given in vain. The edition thus minutely de¬ 
scribed is the most important, which has been 
hitherto published: nor is it probable, that during 
the lives even of the youngest of my hearers 
any other critical edition should supersede it. 
From the exertions, which have been already 
made, it is not likely that new materials of much 
importance should be brought to light: and even 
if there should, it is still less likely, that another 
such editor should be found to arrange and 
digest them. 

Having thus finished the history of the Greek 
text, I shall describe in the next Lecture the 
Criticism of the Greek Testament, according to 
its several departments; and at the same time 
shall enumerate the authors, which respectively 
belong to them. 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


LECTURE VII. 

In the account of the plan, which I proposed 
to observe throughout the course of these Lectures, 
they were represented as a Book of directions, 
from which in the first place might be learned the 
order and connexion , in which Theology should 
be studied, and in the next place might be 
derived a knowledge of the authors , who have 
best explained the several subjects. With this 
knowledge of authors it was further proposed to 
unite “ a knowledge of the advancement or de¬ 
cline of theological learning, a knowledge of how 
much or how little has been performed in the 
different ages of Christianity.” 

Agreeably to this plan I have hitherto treated 
the Criticism of the Bible, which was shewn in 
the second Preliminary Lecture to be the pri¬ 
mary branch of Theology. During the early and 
the middle ages, it was described in the order 


160 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

of time, as critics and criticism successively pre¬ 
sented themselves to our view. But as authors 
have multiplied since the invention of printing 
beyond all comparison with former periods, 
perspicuity required a separation of the subjects 
in the description of the three last centuries, 
though the order of time has still been preserved. 
The Criticism of the Greek Testament , which 
demands our peculiar attention, was selected as 
the first object: and the history of the Greek 
text from the Complutensian edition in 1514 to 
that of Griesbach which was finished in 1806, 
has employed more than three Lectures. But 
though the labour „ and the researches necessary 
for this description have been no less extensive, 
than for a dissertation adorned with all the pomp 
of learning, it has been my chief endeavour to 
give as plain and as popular an account, as the 
subject would admit. I have rather studied to 
excite a taste for biblical criticism, by presenting 
it in an easy and acceptable form, than to assume 
the garb of erudition, which, by magnifying the 
difficulties of the task, might have deterred my 
hearers from engaging in it. Nor did the plan, 
which I proposed to adopt generally in these 
Lectures, require more than an introductory nar¬ 
rative, though perhaps in the present instance 
the execution of the plan has in some measure 
exceeded the original design. Whether more or 


LECTURE VII. 


161 


less has been performed, than was expected, it is 
necessary in the present Lecture to fulfil another 
part of the general plan, and to give some ac¬ 
count of the authors, who have illustrated the 
Criticism of the Greek Testament, according to 
its several departments. 

But before we enter on the proposed enume¬ 
ration, we must guard against the difficulties and 
contradictions, arising from the different lights, 
in which biblical criticism has been viewed by 
different writers. It was observed in the second 
Preliminary Lecture, that the operations of Cri¬ 
ticism and the operations of Interpretation are 
so distinct, that they ought not, however sub¬ 
divided, to be placed in the same class. But 
this distinction is so far from being generally 
observed, that many if not most English writers, 
use the term fi< biblical criticism” in so extensive 
a sense as to include also biblical interpretation , 
especially when the interpretation relates to the 
original languages of the Bible. It is true, that 
no inconvenience will arise from this application 
of the term, if care be taken to keep separate 
the subjects, which it is thus made to compre¬ 
hend. But though some writers, who use the 
term in this extensive sense, (for instance Dr. 
Gerard) have made the proper distinctions, there 
are other writers, who in consequence of their 
L 


1 62 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


using one name for different things , have treated 
them indiscriminately, and thence have perplexed 
both themselves and their readers. To prevent 
such confusion I have in these Lectures invariably 
used the term “ biblical or sacred criticism” in 
its proper and confined sense, namely as the sum 
and substance of that knowledge, which enables 
us to ascertain the genuineness of a disputed 
text. That this is the sense in which the term 
is here used, appears not only from the expla¬ 
nation of it in the second Preliminary Lecture, 
but from the constant application of it in all 
the subsequent Lectures. 

The operations of Criticism having been thus 
distinguished from those of Interpretation, we 
may now deduce an additional argument in favour 
of that priority, which has been given to the 
study of the former. Throughout the description 
of this branch of Theology, no position has been 
tahen for granted out of any other branch. But 
when we enter on the second branch, or the In - 
terpretation of the Bible, we shall be frequently 
obliged, unless our inquiries are superficial, to 
refer to the Criticism of the Bible. We shall 
frequently be obliged to determine the true 
reading of a passage, before we can determine its 
true meaning . “ Interpretationem veram frustra 
quaerimus, ubi de vera lectione dubitamus ” This 


LECTURE VII. 


163 


very just observation is made by Dr. Kennicott 
in his Dissertatio generalis , who immediately 
adds, “ Statuatur vera lectio , et lianc presse 
sequetur vera interpretation Since then an in¬ 
terpreter of the Greek Testament should be 
previouslij acquainted with the Criticism of the 
Greek Testament, and so much knowledge in 
respect to the Criticism of the Greek Testament, 
as is necessary to form a tolerable judgement of 
the text, may be acquired even before we enter on 
the business of interpretation, we can no longer 
hesitate on the question, where our theological 
studies should begin. 

Let it not be objected, that the laws of 
criticism can hardly be understood, and much less 
applied to a passage of the Greek Testament, by 
those, who are not already able to construe it. 
These Lectures are addressed in particular to an 
audience, where it may be safely pre-supposed, that 
every one is already able to construe the Greek 
Testament, able therefore, both to comprehend the 
nature of the various readings, and to understand 
what is meant, when he is informed, that such 
and such readings are supported by such and 
such authorities. But to construe and to interpret 
a passage are two distinct things. To the latter 
something more is wanted, than a readiness at 
the former: otherwise the English translation. 


164 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


which is Greek construed into English, would 
he sufficient without other assistance. It is true, 
that the further we advance in the interpretation 
of the Bible, the better we shall be qualified to 
criticise on the Bible. But does it follow, that, 
because the highest excellence in Criticism is not 
to be obtained till we are conversant with another 
branch of Theology, we must therefore defer the 
study of its principles , till that other branch is 
completed ? Has it not been shewn, that without 
criticism this other branch never can be com¬ 
pleted? We must distinguish between the ac¬ 
quirement of knowledge, and that readiness, that 
certainty in the application of it, which can only 
be obtained by long experience. 

It is surely desirable even at the commence¬ 
ment of our theological studies to be provided 
with the best critical edition of the Greek 
Testament, as being the edition most likely to 
contain the genuine text . And as this edition 
not unfrequently differs from the common text, 
which we ought in no case to reject withou, 
reason , it is our primary duty to obtain as 
much information, as may enable us to form 
some judgement on the question, whether there 
is reason or not for the proposed alterations. 
For this purpose it is not required, that we 
should undertake the drudgery of collating either 


LECTURE VII. 


165 


manuscripts, fathers, or versions. This labour of 
criticism is performed to our hands: we have 
only to learn what others have already done , and 
to understand what has been done, that we may 
know whether it is well or ill done. The more 
convenient and expeditious mode of studying the¬ 
ology is certainly to take for granted on the bare 
assertion of those, who are supposed acquainted 
with the subject, that such and such readings are 
genuine, and that such and such readings are 
spurious. It is likewise a more convenient and 
expeditious mode of studying mathematics , when 
a pupil confiding in the assertion of his tutor, that 
the properties ascribed to the conic sections are 
founded in truth, proceeds to Newton’s Principia, 
without learning to demonstrate those, properties. 
And this confidence, this deference to the judge¬ 
ment of others is not uncommon, in Mathematics 
as well as in Divinity. But neither in the one 
ease, nor in the other, will this confidence be 
attended with conviction . Now the avowed object 
of these Lectures is to produce conviction. If it 
only be desired, in the shortest possible time to 
learn enough of Divinity to pass an examination, 
the well-known publication of Dr. Arthur St. 
George is much better fitted for the purpose. 

Even that portion of sacred criticism, which 
in its application belongs to the third Branch of 


166 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


Divinity, or the Authenticity of the Bible, is in 
its 'principles so connected with verbal criticism, 
that the basis, on which they rest, is nearly one 
and the same. From the criticism of words we 
ascend to the criticism of sentences , from the 
criticism of sentences to the criticism of chapters , 
and from the criticism of chapters to the criticism 
of whole hooks. To illustrate this ascent, an 
example of each will be sufficient. If we turn to 
Griesbach’s Greek Testament at Matth. xxviii. 19. 
we shall find the passage thus worded, Uopev* 

Sevres /uaOr]T€vcraT€ iravra rci eOvrj, ^airri^ovres 
avrovs eis to ovofxa tov Ylarpos, Kai tov Y \ov 
kclI tov dylov Uvevfxaro^, where the whole 
difference from the common text consists in the 
omission of the particle ovv. This omission 
is founded on the authority, not only of many 
ancient Greek manuscripts, but of the ancient 
Greek Fathers, Origen, Athanasius, Basil, Chry¬ 
sostom, and Cyril, who are expressly quoted for 
this purpose. From the criticism of the particle 
olv , which is probably spurious, we ascend to the 
criticism of the whole passage, which is undoubt¬ 
edly genuine. For, if Origen, who was born in 
the century after that, in which St. Matthew 
wrote, found the passage in his manuscript of the 
Gospels, with the exception only of a particle, 
and the Greek Fathers of the fourth century 
found it worded in the same manner in their 


LECTURE VII. 


167 


manuscripts, we have as strong a proof of its 
authenticity, as can be given or required in 
works of antiquity. This passage therefore, which 
includes the three persons of the Trinity, rests 
on a very different foundation from that of the 
similar passage in the fifth chapter of St. John’s 
first Epistle, a passage, which no ancient Greek 
manuscript contains, and which no ancient Greek 
Father ever saw. 

From the criticism of sentences we ascend to 
the criticism of chapters. It is well known, 
that attempts have been made to invalidate the 
testimony which the two first chapters of St. 
Matthew’s Gospel bear to the doctrine of the 
incarnation, by contending, that those chapters 
were not original parts of St. Matthew’s Gospel, 
but were prefixed to it by some other person, at 
some later period. Now, if we turn to the second 
volume of Griesbacli’s Symbolae criticae, where he 
quotes the readings of the Greek Testament from 
Clement of Alexandria and Origen, we shall find 
a quotation fron the first chapter of St. Matthew’s 
Gospel, and a reference to the second , made by 
Celsus the Epicurean philosopher, which quota¬ 
tion and reference are noted by Origen, who 
wrote in answer to Celsus. “ Hinc patet (says 
Griesbach very justly) duo priora Matthaei capita 
Celso nota fuisse.” Now if Celsus, who wrote 


168 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

his celebrated work against the Christians in the 
time of Marcus Aurelius, and consequently little 
more than an hundred years after St. Matthew 
himself wrote, yet found the two first chapters 
in his manuscript of St. Matthew’s Gospel, those 
chapters must either have been original parts of 
St. Matthew’s Gospel, or they must have been 
added at a time so little antecedent to the age of 
Celsus, that a writer so ‘inquisitive, so sagacious, 
and at the same time so inimical to Christianity, 
could not have failed to detect the imposture. 
But in this case he would not have quoted those 
chapters as parts of St. Matthew’s Gospel. Con¬ 
sequently the truth must lie in the other part of 
the dilemma, namely that those chapters are 
authentic . 

From the criticism of chapters we may further 
ascend to the criticism of whole hooks . If we 
again consult Griesbach’s collection of readings 
from Clement of Alexandria and Origen, we shall 
find that these very ancient Fathers had not 
only mannscripts of the Greek Testament, but 
manuscripts of the same Greek Testament, which 
we possess at present, not indeed the same 
throughout in words, but the same in their gene¬ 
ral contents, the same in the leading doctrines of 
the Christian Faith. In this manner does the 
study of sacred criticism contribute to the dis- 


LECTURE VII. 169 

covery of those means, by which we gradually 
establish the truth of Christianity. 

After these preliminary observations, we may 
enter on the enumeration of the authors, who 
have illustrated the Criticism of the Greek Tes¬ 
tament, according to its several departments. 

Of general and elementanj treatises, there is 
none, which is more to be recommended, either 
for perspicuity or correctness, than the Institutes 
of Biblical Criticism, published at Edinburgh in 
1808, in one volume octavo, by Dr. Gerard, Pro¬ 
fessor of Divinity at Aberdeen. 

A knowledge of the editions of the Greek 
Testament may be taken from Le Long’s Bib¬ 
liotheca sacra. Le Long, who was one of the 
Fathers of the Oratory at Paris, published his 
first edition of this work at the beginning of 
1709 in two octavo volumes: and before the end 
of that year a new edition of it appeared at 
Leipzig with additions by Dr. Boerner. In 
twelve years from the publication of the first edi¬ 
tion, Le Long had further augmented his work 
by such an accession of materials, as to increase 
it to two folio volumes, which were published at 
Paris in 1723, two years after the death of the 
author. The first volume of this folio edition 


170 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


contains an account of the then-known manu¬ 
scripts of the Hebrew Bible, with the editions of 
it to the beginning of the eighteenth century; 
an account of the then-known manuscripts of 
the Greek Testament, with the editions of it 
to the same period; an account of the oriental 
and other ancient versions, both of the Old and 
New Testament; and lastly an account of the 
translations of the Bible into the modern lan¬ 
guages. Works of this description are of great 
utility to the biblical scholar: but new editions 
of them, or at least supplements to them are 
frequently wanted, to register the accessions, 
which are continually made to the stock of bibli¬ 
cal literature. After an interval of more than 
fifty years, Dr. Andrew Masch, Superintendent 
of the diocese of Stargard at New Strelitz, 
selected for publication those parts of the Biblio¬ 
theca sacra, which relate to the printed editions; 
namely the editions of the Hebrew Bible, of 
the Greek Testament, of the ancient versions, 
and of the modern Latin versions. In fact 
those parts were made only the basis of a pub¬ 
lication, which may be considered rather as a 
new work , than as a new edition . It was pub¬ 
lished at Halle in six quarto volumes, the first 
in 1778, the last, which contains the chronologi¬ 
cal index, in 1790. All the editions of the 
Greek Testament, to the time of its publication. 


LECTURE VII. 


171 


are enumerated in the first volume, and the prin¬ 
cipal editions are described. This volume is 
the standard book, whence subsequent writers 
have chiefly derived the accounts which they 
have given of the editions of the Greek Testa¬ 
ment : and it is composed with so much * care 
and accuracy, that we may in general depend 
on it. But little or no information can be derived 
from it in respect to the critical history of the 
Greek text, though it is of great value in respect 
to the external history of the editions.—In this 
respect, the principal editions of the Greek Tes¬ 
tament are very well described in Dibdin’s Intro¬ 
duction to the Greek and Latin Classics. A neat 
and correct account of some of the principal edi¬ 
tions is likewise given in Butler’s Horae Biblicae. 
A short account of the editions of the Greek 
Testament to the year 1790 is given also in the 
last edition of Fabricii Bibliotheca Graeca, at 
the end of the fourth volume. A view, though 
an imperfect one, of the principal editions of the 
Greek Testament is annexed by Dr. Harwood 
to his own edition. In the sixth volume of that 
very useful publication, the Bibliographical Dic¬ 
tionary, is a very copious catalogue of the edi¬ 
tions of the Greek Testament accompanied with 
instructive remarks. Many other catalogues might 
be added: but it will be sufficient, if we close 
the account with the Bibliotheca bibltca serenis » 


172 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


simi Wuertenbergensium Ducts, olim LorMana, 
published by Adler at Altona in 1787. It is a 
catalogue, of great merit, and great utility. 

Of the manuscripts of the Greek Testament, 
as far as they were known an hundred years ago, 
a description is given in the folio edition of the 
Bibliotheca sacra. But the number of manu¬ 
scripts, which have been collated since that period, 
is so great, and our knowledge of manuscripts in 
general has so increased, that only a small part 
of the necessary information can now be derived 
from that work: for the last edition of the 
Bibliotheca sacra, as was before observed, contains 
no account of manuscripts. To obtain a complete 
knowledge of all the collated manuscripts of the 
Greek Testament, we must consult the Prolego¬ 
mena or Prefaces to the editions of Mill, Wet- 
stein, Matthaei, Birch, and Griesbach, with 
Griesbach’s Symbolae criticae. Wetstein’s Pro¬ 
legomena have been published separately in an 
octavo volume in 1764, at Halle, by Dr. Sender, 
Professor of Divinity in that University, who 
accompanied the edition with many valuable 
notes. But there is no work, from which a gene¬ 
ral knowledge of the manuscripts of the Greek 
Testament can be derived in so easy a manner, 
as from the Introduction of Michaelis, of which 
the second volume contains a descriptive catalogue 


LECTURE VII. 


173 


alphabetically arranged. It would be tedious to 
enumerate the accounts, which have been pub¬ 
lished of single manuscripts: nor can it be neces¬ 
sary at present, as references to such publications 
may be seen under their respective heads, in the 
descriptive catalogue just mentioned, either in the 
author’s text or in the translator’s notes. But 
the description of the Codex Alexandrinus, which 
is given by Woide in the Preface to his edition 
of it, so surpasses all other descriptions, which 
have been given of single manuscripts, that it 
merits particular notice. On this account it was 
printed separately at Leipzig two years after¬ 
wards, with notes by Spohn, under the title, 
Woidii Notitia Codicis Alexandra^. 

Of the ancient versions of the Greek Testa¬ 
ment, as far as relates to the printed editions of 
them, a very full account is given in the second 
Part of Masch’s edition of the Bibliotheca sacra. 
But for a critical knowledge of those ancient 
versions, we must have recourse to the Introduc¬ 
tion of Michaelis, where the table of contents 
prefixed to the second volume will immediately 
shew where each of them may be found. Indeed 
the description, which Michaelis has given of the 
ancient versions and of the manuscripts of the 
Greek Testament, is that which constitutes the 
most distinguished merit of his Introduction. 


174 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

I of course mean the fourth and last edition; 
for the first edition, though still produced in 
catalogues and lists of theological hooks, is in 
these respects of no value whatever. 

The quotations from the Greek Testament in 
the works of ecclesiastical writers have heen the 
subject of long and serious controversy. While 
the Elzevir text was considered as perfect, every 
deviation from that text was consequently regarded 
as a deviation from the truth. Whenever it was 
observed therefore, that a Greek Father quoted 
the Greek Testament in words, which were not 
precisely the same as the Elzevir text, it was 
inferred that in those quotations there was some¬ 
thing wrong. And since it is not probable, that 
the manuscripts used by the Greek Fathers in the 
second, third, and fourth centuries, should be less 
conformable than modern manuscripts with the 
autographs of the sacred writers, the differences 
between those quotations and the Elzevir text 
were ascribed to the carelessness of the Fathers, 
in quoting from their manuscripts. But as it is 
no longer believed, that the common reading may 
always he defended, the supposition, adopted to 
account for the deviations in question, has lost its 
chief support. Examples of inaccuracy may indeed 
he discovered in every writer, whether ancient 
or modern. But we are only concerned with the 


LECTURE VII. 


175 


general practice of the Fathers: we only want to 
know, whether we may in general, or upon the 
whole, conclude from their quotations to what was 
contained in the manuscripts, from which they 
quoted. When we meet with quotations from our 
English Bible in the writings of English Divines, 
we in general consider their quotations as fair 
representations of our English text, though ex¬ 
amples of inaccuracy might be easily produced, 
arising either from their being incorrectly re¬ 
membered, or incorrectly transci'ibed . In like 
manner, when we meet with quotations from the 
Greek Bible, whether of the Old or New Testa¬ 
ment, in the writings of the Greek Fathers, 
there appears to be no reason for our refusing 
to consider those quotations as fair representations 
of their respective copies of the Greek text, 
unless particular circumstances in particular ex¬ 
amples interfere to warrant our making an 
exception. We must likewise recollect, that the 
Greek Fathers were frequently engaged in con¬ 
troversy, which rendered accuracy in quotation 
peculiarly necessary: for neglect on this point, 
which could not fail to be detected, would im¬ 
mediately have put arms into the hands of their 
adversaries. If Justin Martyr in his Dialogue 
with Trypho, a work written to convince the 
Jews that Jesus was the Messiah, had been 
careless in his quotations from the Greek Bible, 


176 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

the detection of their inaccuracy would have de¬ 
feated the very object he had in view. Again if 
Origen, in his Answer to Celsus, or Cyril of 
Alexandria, in his Reply to Julian the Apostate, 
had been incorrect in their quotations from the 
Greek Testament, what greater triumph could the 
enemies of Christianity in those ages have desired, 
than the exposure of such mistakes. With respect 
to Justin Martyr, I once had occasion to collate 
his quotations from the Septuagint with the text 
of the Codex Vaticanus. The result of this 
collation, with observations on the subject, is 
contained in a publication, which was printed 
at Cambridge in 1803. At present therefore 
I shall only observe that Justin’s quotations from 
the Septuagint were found to agree much more 
closely with the Codex Vaticanus, than the Codex 
Vaticanus itself agrees with another manuscript 
of the Septuagint, which is next in importance 
to it, the Codex Alexandrinus. 

No man has placed the subject of quotations 
from the Greek Testament in so clear a light as 
Griesbach, first in the treatise mentioned in the 
preceding Lecture, De Codicihus quatuor Evan - 
geliorum Origenianis; and secondly in his work 
entitled, Cures in historiam textus Greed episto - 
larum Paulinarum , published at Halle in 1777. 
The Introduction of Michaelis may likewise be 


LECTURE YIT. 


177 


consulted in the chapter appropriated to this sub¬ 
ject, though it is less excellent than the chapters 
which relate to the Greek manuscripts, and the 
ancient versions. With respect to the Fathers 
in general, the most information comprised in 
a small compass is afforded in the j Bibliotheca 
patristica , by Dr. John George Walch, Professor 
of Divinity at Jena, who published it there in 
1770 in one volume octavo. It relates to the 
lives, the writings, the editions, and the various 
uses of the Fathers, and likewise enumerates the 
authors, who have explained the particular subjects 
of inquiry. A more detailed and copious account 
of their writings is contained in Cave’s His tor ia 
Liter aria, of which the best edition was printed 
at Oxford in 1740 and 1743 in two volumes folio. 
Of the Greek Fathers the most ample account is 
given in the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth 
volumes of the new edition of Fabricii Bibliotheca 
Grceca. The editor of this work, Professor Harles 
of Erlangen, has given a short but useful account 
of the Greek Fathers in the last volume of his 
Introductio in Historiam Linguce Grcecce , which 
was published at Altenburg in Saxony in 1795. 
Of the writings of the Latin Fathers, and of the 
different editions of them, the most ample and 
the most accurate account is given in a work 
printed at Leipzig in 1792 and 1794 in two large 
octavos, entitled Bibliotheca historico - literaria 
M 


178 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

Patrum Latinorum, by Mr. Schoenemann, one 
of the librarians at the University of Goettingen. 
Whoever is desirous of entering into the con¬ 
troversy on the quotations of the Fathers will find 
every thing that can be said against them in 
a work written by Daille, a French Protestant 
Clergyman, which was published at Geneva, first 
in French in 1632, and afterwards in Latin, at 
several times, by the title Dallaeus de usu Patrum. 
And every thing, which can be said in favour of 
the Fathers is contained in the following work. 
Cast! Innocentis Ansaldi , Ordinis Prcedicatorum 9 
de authenticis sacrarum scripturarum apud 
sanctos Patres lectionibus , libri duo; which was 
published at Verona in 1747 in one volume 
quarto. 

Before I dismiss the subject of quotations, 
I must notice the difference in the degrees of 
evidence afforded by the Fathers, according to 
the language in which they wrote: and it is 
the more necessary, as there are several writers, 
especially in England, who have not perceived the 
difference. Direct testimony to the authenticity 
of readings in the Greek Testament, is afforded 
only by the Greek Fathers, who alone quoted 
the words of the original. The quotations of 
the Latin Fathers were taken from the Latin 
version , and consequently bear immediate evidence 


LECTURE VII. 


179 


to this version , or to its readings as contained 
in their copies of it. If therefore we have reason, 
in any particular place, to believe that this 
version has been altered or interpolated, the 
circumstance that Latin writers may be found 
who agree with it in that place in opposition 
to the Greek manuscripts, is evidence of no value 
whatsoever. For it is manifest, that wherever 
a version is corrupt , the reading produced from 
it cannot be genuine. 

The three grand sources of various readings 
to the Greek Testament having been thus ex¬ 
plained, with reference to the principal authors, it 
is necessary to take some notice of another source, 
namely emendation from conjecture. Where a 
passage is manifestly faulty, and we have only 
one copy of the work, or where, if we have 
more, they agree in the erratum, we have no 
other means, by which we can even attempt to 
restore the genuine reading, than conjecture. 
But in the Greek Testament our means of cor¬ 
rection from authority are so ample, that con¬ 
jecture is unnecessary: and, if unnecessary, it is 
injurious, especially in a work, where, if the 
words might he altered from conjecture, a door 
would be opened to every species of corruption. 
For this reason, neither Wetstein proposed, nor 
Griesbach received, an alteration of words from 


180 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


conjecture. But though it is not allowable in 
the Greek Testament to alter words from con¬ 
jecture, we are at full liberty to apply it, in 
regard to the stops. For the most ancient manu¬ 
scripts afford no evidence on this head: and 
where stops are added, as in modern manuscripts 
and printed editions, they are founded only on 
the judgement of the writers or editors, which 
we are at liberty to exercise, as well as they. 
In this respect the critical conjectures, annexed 
by Mr. Bowyer to his edition of the Greek 
Testament, and afterwards published with con¬ 
siderable additions in a quarto volume in 1782, 
are of real value. The remarks above-made in 
respect to the stops, apply also for the most part, 
to accents and marks of aspiration. 

It now only remains to mention the principal 
authors, who have written on the utility , and the 
application of various readings. The first author, 
who wrote systematically on this subject, was 
Professor Pfaff, of the University of Tubingen 
in Suabia, whose JDissertatio critica de genuinis 
Novi Testamenti lectionihus was printed at Am¬ 
sterdam in an octavo volume in 1709. It was 
published at the commencement of the contro¬ 
versy about the various readings to Mill’s Greek 
Testament: and its principal object was to con¬ 
fute two opposite and equally false positions, the 


LECTURE VII. 


181 


one maintained by the adversaries of our reli¬ 
gion, that the various readings undermined the 
authority of the text, the other maintained by its 
well-meaning but injudicious friends , who argued 
for the perfection of the Elzevir text. The admi¬ 
rable work of Bentley, which was published four 
years afterwards on this subject, has been no¬ 
ticed in a former Lecture. Another systematic 
treatise on the subject of various readings is the 
Tractatio critica de variis Lectionibus JVovi 
Testamenti caute colligendis et dijudicandis , 
published at Halle in a quarto volume in 1749, 
by Dr. Christian Benedict Michaelis, Father to 
the Author of the Introduction to the New 
Testament. This work goes more into the detail 
of the subject; it gives rules for the application 
of the readings, according to their several sources ; 
and is of particular value in respect to the read¬ 
ings of the oriental versions. To the second 
volume of Wetstein’s Greek Testament, which 
was printed three years afterwards, were annexed 
the Animadversiones et Cautiones, which were 
mentioned in a former Lecture, and were re¬ 
published by Dr. Semler at Halle in 1766, under 
the title, Wetstenii libelli ad crisin atque inter- 
pretationem Novi Testamenti . The Apparatus 
Criticus , which accompanied the edition of the 
Greek Testament by Bengelius, has likewise 
been separately published in a quarto volume in 


182 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


1763 with considerable additions. Much valua¬ 
ble information may be derived from each of 
these writers, though it cannot be expected, that 
they should be unanimous on every point. The 
criticism of the Greek Testament has made such 
rapid advances within the last sixty years, that 
several positions have been found untenable, 
which had been adopted without reserve, while 
others have been adopted, of which the earlier 
writers were uninformed. To obtain a perfect 
knowledge of it in its present and most correct 
state, we must study, again and again, the Pro¬ 
legomena to Griesbach’s Greek Testament. Nor 
should we neglect, if we are able to procure 
it, Griesbach’s Commentarius criticus in textum 
Grcecum Novi Testamenti, of which the first 
Part was published at Jena in 1798. Whether 
this work has been continued, I am unable 
to declare. But, as far as it goes, it admirably 
elucidates the criticism of the Greek Testament 
in every passage, and clearly explains the 
mode, in which Griesbach’s system must be 
applied. 

Lastly, let it be observed of verbal criticism, 
that the value of the labour, which has been 
employed in collecting various readings, depends 
neither on the greatness of their number, nor on 
the diversity of their meaning. If the readings 


LECTURE VII. 


183 


are numerous , which alter the sense, they afford 
the means of correction, in proportion as it is 
wanted. On the other hand, if such readings 
are few in number, the discovery, that they are 
so, is sufficient to pay the cost of that discovery. 

Having thus exhausted the Criticism of the 
New Testament*, I shall proceed in the next 


* As I did not mention in the preceding Lecture Dr. 
Knapp’s edition of the Greek Testament, which was published 
at Halle in 1797, in one volume octavo, and this edition, as 
well as Griesbach’s, contains a revision of the Elzevir text, 
it may appear to be a neglect, if it is left wholly unnoticed, 
though it is very little known in this country. The date of 
the title-page shews, that it was published a year after the 
first volume of Griesbach’s last edition, and nine years 
before the second; consequently that the learned editor could 
avail himself of Griesbach’s researches as far as the end of 
St. John’s Gospel and no further. Nor are any authorities 
quoted in this edition, either for the readings introduced in 
the text (which are not distinguished, as in Griesbach’s 
edition, by a difference of character), or for that selection of 
readings, which the editor thought worthy of notice in the 
margin. This statement is not intended as a censure, brevity 
being necessary for the editor’s object, which was to furnish 
the German students with a cheap pocket edition. But for 
the purposes of criticism Griesbach’s edition must remain 
the standard edition. 

An account of re-impressions, or of publications copied 
from Griesbach’s last edition, though it enters into the pro¬ 
vince of the bibliographer, has no place in a history of the 
Greek text. 

Dr. White’s edition of the common text (Oxford 1808, in 
two volumes octavo), accompanied, as well with the readings, 
which Griesbach thought only equal to the common text, as 

with 



184 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


Lecture to the Criticism of the Old Testa¬ 
ment. 


with those, which Griesbach thought decidedly preferable , 
and therefore adopted in his own, will more properly come 
under consideration in the third branch of Divinity, when 
we inquire into the integrity of the Greek text. 




CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


- ♦- 

LECTURE VIII. 

To ascertain the accuracy of the Hebrew 
text in the Old Testament, we must proceed by 
a method similar to that, which was applied to 
the Greek text in the New Testament. We must 
consider the causes , which have produced the 
variations in the Hebrew manuscripts, and then 
the remedies , which have been employed to cor¬ 
rect them. 

As in the Greek Testament so in the Hebrew 
Bible the various readings have arisen, partly 
from accidental , partly from designed alteration. 
Under the former head may be reckoned, in 
the first place, the casual omission, addition, 
exchange, or transposition, of letters, syllables, 
and words, which no transcriber, however care¬ 
ful, can wholly avoid. The eye is frequently 
deceived by a similarity in the form of different 
letters. This cause has operated more in the 
Hebrew Bible, than in the Greek Testament: 



186 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


for the Hebrew letters resemble each other more 
than the Greek letters. At one time the whole 
difference consists in the acuteness or obtuseness 
of an angle; at other times, either on the 
length, or the straitness of a line, distinctions so 
minute, that even when the letters are perfect, 
mistakes will sometimes happen, and still more 
frequently when they are inaccurately formed, 
or are partially effaced. In fact this is one of 
the most fruitful sources of error in the Hebrew 
manuscripts, as will appear to every one who 
takes only a cursory view of Dr. Kennicott’s 
Bible. 

Again, as likeness of form occasions mistakes 
in reading , so likeness of sound occasions mis¬ 
takes in hearing , when a copyist writes as 
another dictates. And this cause is likewise 
more powerful in Hebrew than in Greek, on 
account of the gutturals, which are less distin¬ 
guishable, than the sounds of any other class. 
Another kind of exchange from dictation, which 
is peculiar to the Hebrew, was the custom of 
reading , in certain cases, differently from what 
was written . For instance, the word Jehovah, 
which expresses the Being, the Essence, and the 
Eternity of the Deity, was considered by the 
Jews as a word too sacred for human utterance: 
and therefore, whenever they met with this 


LECTURE VIII. 


187 


word in the Bible, they read for it another word, 
expressive not of God , but of Lord. Hence 
the latter is frequently found in one Hebrew 
manuscript, when the former is found in another. 
Hence also in the Septuagint the word Jehovah 
is never expressed by 0eo?, but uniformly by 
K vpios. 

Other accidental variations arose from what 
is called the homoeoteleuton, or the recurrence of 
the same word after a short interval, which may 
occasion the omission of the words which lie 
between. Sometimes abbreviations, sometimes 
numerical marks were falsely decyphered: at 
other times, if the words of the copied manu¬ 
scripts were written without intervals, they were 
improperly divided. Lastly, as it was not un¬ 
common to add letters at the end of a line in 
the Hebrew manuscripts, in order to fill up the 
space where it was too small for the following 
word, (it not being usual to write Hebrew 
words partly in one line partly in another) those 
supplementary letters were sometimes mistaken 
for letters of the text , especially if they were 
such, as were capable of representing some He¬ 
brew word. 

It appears then, that the causes of accidental 
variation must have operated more powerfully in 


188 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


the transcribing of Hebrew, than in the tran¬ 
scribing of Greek manuscripts. On the other 
band there is reason to believe, that the designed 
alterations, which have been made in the Hebrew 
text of the Old Testament, are less numerous, 
than the similar alterations, which have been 
made in the Greek text of the New Testament. 
Indeed it is obvious from Hr. Kennicott’s colla¬ 
tion, that such alterations have been inconsidera- 
ble^ since the introduction of the Masora. But as 
no circumspection could wholly prevent the liber¬ 
ties, which for various reasons transcribers were 
inclined to take, those reasons, or causes of alter¬ 
ation, must be distinctly examined. And this 
examination is the more necessary, as before the 
introduction of the Masora, which cannot be dated 
higher than the fourth or fifth century, those 
causes had nothing to counteract them. It is true, 
that the oldest of the Hebrew manuscripts, now 
extant, are younger by some centuries, than the 
Masora. But as these must have been copied from 
more ancient manuscripts, and those again from 
manuscripts, which were written before the learned 
Jews of Tiberias, or the Masorets, as they are 
called from the work which they established, had 
erected a guard against future innovation, the 
effects of previous alteration must have still con¬ 
tinued to be partially felt, and consequently must 
have been transmitted to the present age. 


LECTURE VIII. 


189 


Let it not however be imagined, that the 
alterations, of which we are now speaking, were 
intentional corruptions of the sacred text, or, in 
other words, alterations introduced with the con¬ 
sciousness, that they were corruptions. Such 
conduct was incompatible with that profound 
veneration, which the Jews in every age have 
entertained for the Hebrew scriptures. It is true 
that such conduct has been ascribed to them. 
The charge originated with some of the early 
Fathers in their controversies with the Jews, who 
sometimes reproached their Christian adversaries 
with producing passages from the Greek Bible, 
which differed from the Hebrew. In such cases 
the Fathers should have critically examined the 
words, both of the Hebrew and of the Greek: 
for an ancient translation maij , and sometimes 
does retain the genuine reading of a passage, 
where modern copies of the original have lost it. 
But no such examination appears to have taken 
place by those, who were the most strenuous in 
accusing the Jews. Indeed few of them were 
capable of the examination: and they charged 
their adversaries with wilful corruption, because 
they had nothing else to reply. Now accusations 
made without proof, are entitled to no credit. 
Jerom, who of all the Fathers was perhaps the 
best judge of this subject, was certainly of opinion, 
that the Jews had not corrupted the Hebrew scrip- 


190 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


tures: for in contradistinction to the Septuagint 
he calls the Hebrew Bible Veritas Hebraica: 
and when he made a new translation, he trans¬ 
lated, not from the Greek, but from the Hebrew. 
Nor was Origen, notwithstanding some expres¬ 
sions, which seem to indicate the contrary, of a 
different opinion from Jerom. 

The alterations therefore, of which we are 
now speaking, are such as have taken place from 
erroneous judgement , from a false opinion in the 
transcribers, that they were supplying defects, or 
correcting mistakes. They chiefly arose from the 
custom of writing notes in the margin of Hebrew 
manuscripts, which notes were in subsequent 
copies transferred into the text. These notes were 
of various kinds. Sometimes, if a city mentioned 
in the Bible had in the course of ages changed 
its name, the new name was added in the margin 
of the passage. At another time if an ancient 
name was still preserved, a note was added to 
express, that the place was so called to that day. 
At other times observations were made, which 
related to history or chronology. Annotations of 
all these kinds may be still traced in the Penta¬ 
teuch. They have been quoted indeed by the 
adversaries of our religion for a different purpose : 
and, as such readings manifestly betray a later 
hand, than that of Moses, it has been inferred. 


LECTURE VIII. 


191 


that the books, which contain them, are spurious. 
But such readings may he explained, as mar¬ 
ginal notes removed into the text: and if the 
arguments for the authenticity of the Penta¬ 
teuch are conclusive, they must he explained in 
that manner. 

Other marginal annotations were drawn from 
parallel passages, being added, either to supply 
the shorter description from the longer, or to 
explain a difficult by an easy passage. Indeed 
explanatory notes appear to have been added from 
various sources, taken sometimes from Chaldee 
paraphrases, at other times from commentaries, 
at other times again from those allegorical inter¬ 
pretations, to which the Jews gave the title of 
Medrash. Now such annotations being sometimes 
mistaken, especially by ignorant transcribers, for 
parts of the text, which had been accidentally 
omitted, and afterwards supplied in the margin, 
were in the next copy transferred, as was sup¬ 
posed, to their proper places. Or readings of this 
description might sometimes find their way into 
the text, even without the intervention of a mar¬ 
ginal note. 

Lastly, there is a source of various readings 
in the Hebrew manuscripts, which appears to 
have been equally productive with all the other 


192 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


sources put together, namely the difference in 
the mode of writing certain Hebrew words. It is 
to be observed, that the letters Aleph, Vau, and 
Jod are denominated matres lectionis, from their 
utility in instructing the reader of an unpointed 
manuscript how to pronounce the words, in which 
those letters are contained. But after the intro¬ 
duction of the vowel points , the letters Yau and 
Jod became less necessary, and they were con¬ 
sidered chiefly as props, or fulcra (as they are 
called) to those points, with which they are 
usually accompanied. When manuscripts there¬ 
fore were written with points, those letters were 
sometimes inserted, sometimes omitted, and ap¬ 
parently at the discretion of the copyist. Where 
they are inserted, the words are said to be plene 
scripta: where they are omitted, the words are 
said to be defective scripta. Now variations of 
this kind are only various modes of writing the 
same word , and seem to be no more entitled to 
a place among various readings , than the ortho¬ 
graphical differences in the Greek manuscripts, 
which neither Walton, nor Mill, nor Wetstein, 
nor Griesbach have thought worthy of notice. 
But as the cases of the Hebrew and the Greek 
manuscripts are not exactly parallel, as examples 
may occur in which the above-mentioned fullness 
or defectiveness has resulted from some other 
cause, than the discretion of a transcriber in 


LECTURE VIII. 


193 


regard to a mater lectionis , the variations in 
question must not be wholly disregarded, though 
more attention has certainly been shewn to them, 
than they deserve. 

The principal causes, which produced the 
variations in the Hebrew manuscripts, having 
been thus explained, we must now examine the 
means, which have been adopted to obtain a 
cojrect ' edition of the Hebrew Bible. In our 
researches on this subject we must be contented 
with much less information, than we were able to 
obtain in our similar researches on the Greek 
Testament. The manuscripts , which were used 
by the early editors of the Hebrew Bible, and 
the modes , in which those editors employed their 
materials, are equally unknown to us: nor have 
we sufficient data to ascertain the influence of 
preceding on subsequent editions. We are indeed 
amply provided with catalogues of Hebrew Bibles, 
which determine their chronological order : but 
how far the editors were governed by their manu¬ 
scripts, how far they copied from their predeces* 
sors, what rules they adopted in the choice of 
their readings, w r hy some of them preferred a 
marginal , where others chose a textual reading, 
the editors themselves have not informed us, and 
it is not in our power to learn. To trace there¬ 
fore the progress of the Hebrew text, as we 
N 


29$ CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

traced the progress of the Greek text, through¬ 
out its several stages, from edition to edition, is 
wholly impracticable. All, that can he attempted, 
is to mention in the first place such of the early 
editions, as in a critical history are most entitled 
to attention, and then to consider the steps, 
which have been taken toward the formation of 
a critical apparatus. 

The first edition of the whole Hebrew Bible 
was printed in 1488 at Soncino, a small town in 
the neighbourhood of Cremona. It is at present 
so scarce, that only nine copies of it are known, 
one of which is preserved in the library of Exeter 
College, at Oxford. The next edition of the 
whole Hebrew Bible was published in 1494 at 
Brescia, and is remarkable for being the edition, 
from which Luther made his German translation. 
The edition, which in the next place deserves 
our attention is the Complutensian Polyglot, of 
which the parts containing the Hebrew Bible 
were finished in 1517. In 1518 Daniel Bom berg 
published at Venice two editions of the Hebrew 
Bible, the one in quarto, the other in large folio. 
The latter was conducted by Felix Pratensis: 
and as it contains the Hebrew text accompanied 
with the Masora , it is called Bomberg’s first 
Rabbinical Bible. The second edition of it, 
which is more correct, was printed in 1525 under 


LECTURE VIII. 


195 


the direction of Jacob Ben Hajim, who had the 
reputation of being profoundly learned in the Ma- 
sora, and other branches of Jewish erudition. 

The Brescia edition of 1494, the Compluten- 
sian edition of 1517, and the last-mentioned 
Bomberg’s edition of 1525, are the three editions, 
which were principally used in the printing of 
the subsequent editions. 

The editions hitherto mentioned were all 
printed under the inspection of Jews, or of Jew¬ 
ish Converts. But in 1534 Sebastian Munster, 
a learned German, who was Professor, first at 
Heidelberg, and afterwards at Basel, commenced 
an edition of the Hebrew Bible, which was 
finished in the following year, at the office of 
Frobenius, where Erasmus about the same period 
was engaged in printing his editions of the Greek 
Testament. In 1536 Sebastian Munster pub¬ 
lished a second edition, accompanied, not, as the 
first edition was, with a Latin translation, but 
with parts of the Masora, and various critical 
annotations. Three years afterwards Robert Ste¬ 
phens began his quarto edition of the Hebrew 
Bible, which was finished in 1543: and in the 
two following years he printed his duodecimo 
edition. In 1569 the Antwerp Polyglot began 
to be printed, of which the four first volumes 


196 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

contain the Hebrew Bible, accompanied with all 
the ancient versions, which were then known. 
In 1587 was printed at Hamburg the edition of 
Elias Hutter. In 1611 the celebrated John 
Buxtorf printed at Basel his octavo edition of 
the Hebrew Bible: in 1619 he published his 
great Rabbinical Bible: and in 1620 he pub¬ 
lished his Tiberias , which was intended to illus¬ 
trate the Masora, and other additions to his great 
Bible. 

We are now arrived at a period, which forms 
an epocha in the history of the Hebrew text. 
Hitherto it was commonly supposed, that all the 
copies of the Hebrew Bible, as well manuscript 
as printed, contained the same text with little 
or no variation. It is true that the Rabbinical 
Bibles had the marginal words of the Masora, 
with reference to the correspondent words of the 
text. But of these marginal words such fanciful 
notions were then entertained, as prevented their 
application to any critical purpose. We know 
at present that they are various readings to the 
Hebrew Bible: and Dr. Kennicott relates in his 
Dissertatio generalise that among a thousand of 
them (as printed by Van der Hooght) there were 
only fourteen, which were not found in the text 
of some one of the Hebrew manuscripts collated 
for his edition. They are various readings there- 


LECTURE VIII. 


197 


fore in the true sense of the term : they resulted 
from ancient collations of Hebrew manuscripts, 
begun probably before the age of the Masora, 
though first recorded, as well as continued and 
augmented, in that work. Indeed the text itself, 
as regulated by the learned Jews of Tiberias, was 
probably the result of a collation of manuscripts. 
But as those Hebrew critics were cautious of 
introducing too many corrections in the text, they 
noted in the margins of their manuscripts, or in 
their critical collections, such various readings, 
derived from other manuscripts either by them¬ 
selves or by their predecessors, as appeared to be 
worthy of attention. This is the real origin of 
those marginal or masoretic readings, which we 
find in many editions of the Hebrew Bible. But 
the propensity of the later Jews to seek mystical 
meanings in the plainest facts, induced gradually 
the belief, that both textual and marginal read¬ 
ings proceeded from the sacred writers themselves, 
and that the latter were transmitted to posterity 
by oral tradition, as conveying some mysterious 
application of the written words. They were 
regarded therefore as materials, not of criticism , 
but of interpretation. 

Under these circumstances it is not extra¬ 
ordinary, that the Masoretic readings suggested 
not the notion of a diversity in the Hebrew 


198 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


manuscripts: it is not extraordinary, that Elias 
Levita, a learned Jew at the beginning of the 
sixteenth century, should say, (as Buxtorf has 
translated the Rabbinic original,) “ Post laborem 
ilium, quem prcestiterunt Masoretce, impossibile 
est ut ceciderit, vel cadere possit mutatio aut 
depravatio qucedam ullo modo ‘ in idlos libros 
biblicos Nor is it extraordinary that Buxtorf, 
who quotes this passage in the second chapter of 
his Tiberias, should confirm it by saying of the 
Hebrew manuscripts, Omnium librorum , qui vel 
in Asia, vel in Africa, vel in Pur op a sunt, sine 
ulla discrepantia, consonans harmonia cernitur . 
Elias Hutter, in the Preface to his edition, which 
was published more than thirty years before 
Buxtorf’s Tiberias, had indeed declared, that 
the editions of the Hebrew Bible, as printed by 
Bomberg, by Stephens, and in the Antwerp Poly¬ 
glot, differed from each other in several thousand 
places, and moreover that the differences in the 
Hebrew manuscripts were still greater. But 
either Buxtorf never read this Preface, or his 
attachment to the Masora prevented him from 
attending to its evidence. He believed therefore 
in a perfect uniformity of the Hebrew manu¬ 
scripts : and this perfect uniformity was supposed 
to have uninterruptedly existed from the times, 
when the books of the Old Testament were 
severally written. It was likewise the common 


LECTURE VIII. 


199 


opinion in the age of Buxtorf, to which his great 
authority materially contributed, not only that 
the Hebrew letters had descended unaltered from 
the time of Moses, hut that the vowel points , 
with all their gradations and refinements, were 
coeval with the letters themselves. 

But soon after the publication of BuxtorPs 
Tiberias a discovery was made, which gave a new 
turn to the sentiments of the learned, not only 
in respect to the Hebrew letters and points , hut 
in regard to the text itself. It had been long 
known, that the Samaritans, originally descended 
from the ten tribes who revolted in the reign of 
Rehoboam, and still existing as a separate sect 
in Samaria and its neighbourhood, possessed the 
five books of Moses in a form peculiar to them¬ 
selves. But from the time of Eusebius and of 
Jerom, who have noticed this Samaritan Penta¬ 
teuch, no European appears to have seen it till 
the beginning of the seventeenth century, when 
Pietro della Valle, during his travels in the East, 
obtained not only a copy of the Samaritan Penta¬ 
teuch itself but also a translation of it into 
the Samaritan language. The latter he took 
with him to Rome: the former he sent to Har- 
laeus de Sancy, one of the Fathers of the Oratory 
at Paris, who presented it in 1620 to the library 
of that religious house. 


200 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

No event in the history of literature has 
excited more sensation, than the discovery of 
this Samaritan Pentateuch. It was observed that, 
though its letters are very different from the 
Hebrew, it contained the same Hebrew words as 
the common manuscripts; and that, though its 
text was in many places different, it manifestly 
contained the same work . It was further ob¬ 
served, that its letters were no where accompanied 
with vowel points. It was then considered, that, 
as the Pentateuch is the only part of the Bible, 
which is received by the Samaritans, their copies 
of it must have been derived, if not from those 
of their ancestors , who seceded from the tribe 
of Judah, at least from some copy, antecedent to 
the Babylonish Captivity. For if their sacred 
books had been received from the Jews after the 
Babylonish Captivity, they would not have been 
confined to the five books of Moses. This argu¬ 
ment was strengthened by the reflexion, that the 
animosity between the Jews and the Samaritans 
commenced immediately on the return of the 
former from Babylonia. It was therefore as im¬ 
probable, that the Samaritans should then borrow 
from the Jews, as it was improbable, that their 
forefathers should have seceded without some 
copies of the Law, which was the rule both of 
their civil and of their religious institutions. 
Finally, as the Jews, who returned to Palestine 


LECTURE VIII. 


201 


at the expiration of the captivity, returned with 
the language of their Chaldean masters, and the 
letters of this language were the letters, in which 
the Jews have written since that period, the sup¬ 
position, that, with their language, they exchanged 
also their letters , while the Samaritans retained 
them, appeared more probable, than that the 
letters of the Jews were originally the same with 
those of the Chaldees, and that the exchange 
took place on the part of the Samaritans . It was 
inferred therefore, that the original alphabet of 
the sacred writings was not the Chaldee , but the 
Samaritan: and as the Samaritan letters are 
not accompanied with points, it was further con¬ 
cluded, that the points now used with the He¬ 
brew or Chaldee letters were the invention of 
a later age. 

Such were the reflexions suggested by the 
examination of the Samaritan Pentateuch. Four 
years had not elapsed from the arrival of the copy 
of it in the Oratory at Paris, when Ludovicus 
Cappellus, Hebrew Professor at the French Pro¬ 
testant University of Saumur, composed his cele¬ 
brated work, Arcanum punctationis revelatum. 
This work contains almost all the arguments, 
which have been since used against the antiquity 
of the Hebrew points; and they are stated so 
fully and clearly, that the subject appeared to be 


202 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


exhausted in the first essay on it. But as the 
opinion, that the Hebrew points were of modern 
origin, was likely, when first advanced, to be 
regarded as an infringement on the integrity even 
of the text , Cappellus had the precaution to send 
his work in the manuscript to he examined by 
Buxtorf, who returned it with the request that 
it might not be printed. Cappellus then sent it 
to Erpenius, Professor of the Oriental languages 
at Leyden, who so approved of it, that with the 
permission of the author he printed it at Leyden 
in 1624. Buxtorf made no reply to it: and as 
he died about five years afterwards, he left it to 
be answered by his son, who was likewise Pro¬ 
fessor in the University of Basel. But many 
years elapsed before the younger Buxtorf had 
prepared an answer to Cappellus. In the mean 
time Johannes Morinus, one of the Fathers of 
the Oratory at Paris, attacked the antiquity of 
the Hebrew letters in his Exercitationes eccle - 
siasticce , printed at Paris in 1631. And as the 
antiquity of the letters appeared more important, 
perhaps also more defensible, than the antiquity 
of the points , the younger Buxtorf made his first 
essay in a defence of the Hebrew letters, entitled 
Dissertatio de liter arum Hebraicarum genuina 
antiquit ate. The precise year when this treatise 
was first published is not known: but in 1645 it 
received an answer from Cappellus in his Diatriba 


LECTURE VIII. 


203 


de veris et antiquis Hebrceorwm literis , in which 
Cappellus contended, as Morinus had already 
done, that the true and the ancient letters of 
the Hebrews were no other than the Samaritan. 
In 1648 the younger Buxtorf made his reply to 
Cappellus on the subject of the points , in a work 
entitled, Tractatus de punctorum vocalium et 
accentuum in libris Veteris Testamenti Hebraicis 
origine 9 antiquitate , et authoritate , oppositus 
Arcano punctationis revelato Ludovici Cappelli . 
To this work Cappellus prepared an answer en¬ 
titled Arcani punctationis Vindicice. But he 
died before the publication of it: and his son, to 
whom it was left in manuscript, did not publish 
it, till many years after the death also of his 
opponent Buxtorf. 

This controversy about the antiquity of the 
Hebrew letters and points must be carefully dis¬ 
tinguished from another controversy hereafter to 
be mentioned, in which Cappellus and the younger 
Buxtorf were likewise engaged, on the integrity 
of the Hebrew text: for the two controversies, 
though in some measure connected, and frequently 
confounded, rest on totally distinct grounds. In 
the opinion, that the Hebrew or Chaldee charac¬ 
ter was not used by the Jews till after the Baby¬ 
lonish Captivity, and that the present system of 
vowel points was introduced in a still later age, 


204 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


the most distinguished Hebrew scholars, with a 
very few exceptions, have sided with Cappellus. 

From the controversy on the letters and 
points we must proceed to the more important 
controversy, which relates to the words . Of this 
controversy, and of the subsequent labours of the 
learned to provide a critical apparatus for the pur¬ 
pose of amending the Hebrew text, an account 
will be given in the following Lecture. 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 



LECTURE IX. 

We are now entering on a question of much 
greater moment, than the antiquity, either of the 
Hebrew points, or of the Hebrew letters, namely 
the integrity of the Hebrew text. The letters 
may have been changed , the points may be new, 
yet the words may have remained the same. 

To prevent confusion in this inquiry, we 
should previously determine the meaning of the 
expression “ integrity of the Hebrew text. ” The 
text of an ancient author may be said to have 
preserved its integrity, if it has descended to the 
present age in such a state, as upon the whole the 
author gave it. If we go further, and require a 
perfect uniformity* in all the copies of an ancient 
work, before we will grant, that its integrity is 
preserved, we require more, than it is possible to 
obtain : for it is impossible to multiply written 
copies of a work, without some deviation from the 


206 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

author’s own manuscript. We have seen how¬ 
ever that Buxtorf, in the second chapter of his 
Tiberias, carried his notions on this subject so 
high, as to deny the existence of variations in 
the Hebrew text; and thus, by placing its inte¬ 
grity on a false basis, exposed it to the danger of 
being questioned upon grounds, which constitute 
no real cause of impeachment. 

The first person who combated the opinion of 
Buxtorf on this subject, was not Cappellus, but 
Johannes Morinus, who, as mentioned in the pre¬ 
ceding Lecture, was a priest of the Oratory at 
Paris, the religious house, which possessed the 
first-known copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch. 
Of this Pentateuch Morinus gave a short account 
in the preface to his edition of the Septuagint, 
which was printed at Paris in 1628. He gave 
a more copious account of it, as also of its trans¬ 
lation into the Samaritan language in his Exer - 
citationes ecclesiasticce in utrumque Samaritano - 
rum Pentateuchum , published at Paris in 1631, 
in which he not only maintained (as related in 
the preceding Lecture) that the Samaritan letters 
were the ancient letters of the Jews, but also, that 
the Samaritan Pentateuch, or the Pentateuch as 
written with Samaritan letters, contains a more 
ancient and accurate text of the five books of 
Moses, than the Hebrew Pentateuch, or the 


LECTURE IX. 


207 


Pentateuch as written with the common Hebrew 
letters . In 1632 the Samaritan Pentateuch, with 
its translation into the Samaritan language, was 
under the inspection of Morinus printed in the 
sixth volume of the Paris Polyglot: and in 1633 
Morinus published the first volume of his Ex- 
ercitationes biblicce de Hebrcei Grcecique textus 
sinceritate , which was reprinted many years after¬ 
wards (in 1669) with the addition of a second 
volume. 

The object of these Ex ercitationes biblicce is 
to shew that the Hebrew Bible has descended to 
posterity in a very imperfect state; not that the 
Jews had wilfully corrupted the sacred writings, 
but that they had transcribed them so negligently , 
as to have lost in very numerous instances the 
original and genuine text. To establish this 
position, Morinus appealed not to any diversity, 
which might be found in the Hebrew manuscripts; 
for a collation of Hebrew manuscripts seemed at 
that time to form no part of the business of 
a Hebrew critic, whether this omission was owing 
to the circumstance, that the Hebrew manuscripts 
were chiefly in the hands of the Jews, or that the 
prevalent opinion in regard to their general coin¬ 
cidence deterred men from undertaking a task 
supposed to be useless. Morinus appealed to the 
differences between the Hebrew and the Samaritan 


208 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


text in the Pentateuch, and to the differences 
between the Hebrew and the Septuagint in other 
parts of the Bible. As he believed that the Sama¬ 
ritan Pentateuch contained a more ancient and 
correct text* than the Hebrew Pentateuch, he 
concluded , that the latter was incorrect, where it 
differed from the former. And, as the Septuagint 
version was made from manuscripts, which must 
have been older by a thousand years, than the 
oldest of the Hebrew manuscripts extant in the 
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, or from which 
any edition of the Hebrew Bible could have been 
printed, he inferred that the Septuagint version 
had greater critical authority, than either Hebrew 
manuscripts or Hebrew editions. But Morinus, 
in preferring the Greek version to the Hebrew 
original, did not consider, that this version has 
itself undergone material alterations. Morinus 
argued, as if his copy of the Septuagint contained 
the Greek text in its original and unadulterated 
state. It is only on this supposition, that his 
reasoning from the antiquity of that version com¬ 
pared with the age of the present Hebrew manu¬ 
scripts, and the inference, which he thence deduced 
in favour of the former, to the disparagement of 
the latter, can have the least foundation. But 
the supposition is evidently false, as appears both 
from the testimony of Origen, which was given 
in a former Lecture, and from a collation of the 


LECTURE IX. 


209 


manuscripts now extant. In fact, before we can 
safely apply the Septuagint to the emendation of 
the Hebrew Bible, we must be furnished with 

a critical edition of the Septuagint itself.- 

From what has been already stated, it appears 
that Morinus went as far into one extreme, as 
Buxtorf had gone into the other. But Morinus 
was not satisfied with going thus far: he went 
still further, and opposed to the Hebrew the 
authority likewise of the Latin version, for which 
he could have no other reason, than that the 
Latin is the established version of his own 
church, the church of Rome. Here then he 
mixed religious with critical inquiries, which 
must always be kept distinct, or every Christian 
party will at length have a Bible of its own. 

In the year following Simeon de Muis, who 
had written already against the Exercitationes 
ecclesiasticce respecting the Samaritan Pentateuch, 
published his Assertio altera Veritatis Hebraicce, 
against the Exercitationes biblicce , and the ob¬ 
jections of Morinus to the integrity of the Hebrew 
text. But the controversy on this subject was 
soon afterwards transferred to Cappellus and the 
younger Buxtorf. 

In 1650 was published at Paris the first edition 
of Cappelli Critica sacra. In this work, though 
O 



210 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


the author so far trod in the footsteps of Morinus, 
that he combated the strict notions of the elder 
Buxtorf in regard to the integrity of the Hebrew 
text, he avoided that extreme on the opposite 
side, into which Morinus had fallen. He main¬ 
tained, and rightly maintained, that the Hebrew 
Bible, like all other works of antiquity, had been 
exposed to the variations, which unavoidably arise 
from a multiplication of copies: but he contended 
not, that the sacred text was thereby rendered 
uncertain, as a rule of faith and manners. He 
contended, that the printed editions were not 
every where so correct, as to warrant the opinion, 
that emendation is superfluous; but at the same 
time he admitted that we possessed the means of 
emendation. He considered the ancient versions, 
when applied under proper restrictions, as one 
source of critical authority in ascertaining the 
genuineness of disputed passages: but he re¬ 
garded not, with Morinus, a deviation of the 
Hebrew from the Septuagint or the Vulgate as 
a reason for supposing, that in such places the 
Hebrew was incorrect. In short his principles of 
criticism were such, as the best judges have 
applied to ancient authors in general. Where 
Cappellus failed, he failed in the application of 
his principles. He was right in asserting, that 
the Hebrew manuscripts, from which the Sep¬ 
tuagint and other ancient versions were made. 


LECTURE IX. 


211 


had not precisely the same text, as modern manu¬ 
scripts, or printed editions. But he sometimes 
ascribed to a diversity of reading , what might 
rather be ascribed to a diversity of translation . 
He was right in asserting, that the authors of 
the Masora had not established a Hebrew text, 
which was free from fault: but he was unjust in 
not acknowledging the services, which they really 
performed. He was right in asserting, that even 
the Masoretic text had not descended to posterity 
without variations: but he was unjust to the 
authors of the Masora in not acknowledging the 
care, which they took to preserve it. For if 
their success has not been complete, either in 
establishing or in preserving the Hebrew text, 
they have been guilty only of the fault, which is 
common to every human effort. Nor was Cap- 
pellus enabled by the actual production of Hebrew" 
manuscripts (a defect indeed rather of the times 
than his own) to confirm several positions, which 
in themselves were true. 

In these various respects was Cappellus open 
to attack: and his work had not been published 
a year, when it was assailed by Arnoldus Bootius, 
a name now buried in oblivion, and which deserves 
to be mentioned on no other account, than that 
his attack was published in the form of a Letter 
to Archbishop Usher, to whom Cappellus imme- 


212 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


diately addressed his Epistola apologeticci , in qua 
Arnoldi JBootii terrier aria Criticce censura re - 
fellitur , which was published at Saumur in 1651. 

But all other assailants were forgotten in the 
younger Buxtorf, who in 1653 published at Basel 
his Anticritica seu vindiciee veritatis Hebraicce, 
adversus Eudovici Cappelli Criticam quam vocant 
sacram , ejusque defensionem . If Buxtorf had 
been contented with pointing out the defects, 
which really existed in the work of Cappellus, 
if he had been satisfied with shewing, that Cap¬ 
pellus was sometimes mistaken in the application 
of his principles, if he had only claimed for the 
Masora, what is really its due, the victory would 
have been decidedly in his favour. But he failed 
of success by attempting too much. Educated, 
like his father, no less in the prejudices , than 
in the learning of the Jewish Rabbins, he ad¬ 
hered to those strict notions on the integrity of 
the Hebrew text, which can never apply to a 
work of antiquity. And by refusing to admit, 
what was indisputably true, he contributed to 
establish at least the principles of Cappellus, 
by the very efforts, which he made to confute 
them. 

Four years after the publication of Buxtorf’s 
Anticritica , Bishop Walton, in his Prolegomena 


LECTURE IX. 


213 


to the London Polyglot, declared in favour of the 
principles asserted by Cappellus, acknowledged 
the necessity of forming a critical apparatus for 
the purpose of obtaining a more correct text of 
the Hebrew Bible, and materially contributed 
thereto by his own exertions. 

A collation of Hebrew manuscripts , like those 
which have been made of the Greek manuscripts, 
was still wanted: but as the necessity of such a 
collation began now to be acknowledged, attempts 
to that purpose were gradually made by the sub¬ 
sequent editors of the Hebrew Bible. In 1661 
Joseph Athias, a learned Rabbi and printer at 
Amsterdam, published a Hebrew Bible (reprinted 
in 1667) the text of which was founded on 
manuscripts, as well as on printed editions. 
And in the Preface, which was written by John 
Leusden, Hebrew Professor at Utrecht, it is 
related that one of the manuscripts was nine 
hundred years old. In 1690 Jablonski, a Lutheran 
Clergyman at Berlin, published a Hebrew Bible, 
for which he likewise collated manuscripts, and 
gave some account of them in his Preface. In 
1705 was printed at Amsterdam the edition of 
Van der Hooght, well known for its typographical 
beauty, and its convenience for common use. 
The text was chiefly formed on that of Athias. 
It has the Masoretic readings in the margin, and 


214 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


a collection of various readings from printed 
editions at the end. In 1709 Professor Opitz 
at Kiel published a Hebrew Bible, for which he 
collated both editions and manuscripts: and in 
1720 John Henry Micliaelis, Professor at Halle, 
and uncle to the author of the Introduction to 
the New Testament, published a Hebrew Bible, 
for which he collated, beside many printed 
editions, five Hebrew manuscripts preserved at 
Erfurt, of which the various readings are quoted 

at the bottom of the page.-These are the 

chief among the critical editions of the Hebrew 
Bible, which appeared before the middle of the 
last century: for though the edition of Beinec- 
cius, which was several times reprinted, professes 
on the title-page to have been formed at least 
partly on the authority of manuscripts, those 
manuscripts are no where mentioned in it. 

Toward the middle of the last century the 
expectations of the public were considerably raised 
by the preparations for an edition of the Hebrew 
Bible by Houbigant, a priest of the Oratory at 
Paris. Like Wetstein he published his Prole¬ 
gomena before he published the edition itself. 
They were first printed in 1746, and were fol¬ 
lowed in 1753 by a splendid edition of the 
Hebrew Bible in four volumes folio. The text 
of this edition was copied from the text of Van 



LECTURE IX. 


21 5 


der Hooght, divested indeed of points, and of 
every thing which appeared Masoretic. Its value 
therefore as a critical edition must depend, first 
on the apparatus , which the editor provided for 
the purpose of amending the Hebrew text, and 
secondly on the mode, in which he applied his 
apparatus. Now this apparatus bore no propor¬ 
tion to the magnitude of the undertaking. If we 
except the Samaritan readings, which are printed 
in the margin of the Pentateuch, it consisted 
altogether of extracts from only twelve Hebrew 
manuscripts, three of which were preserved in 
the Royal Library, and nine in the library belong¬ 
ing to the Oratory, of which Houbigant was 
member. They are described partly in his gene¬ 
ral Prolegomena, partly in the Dissertation pre¬ 
fixed to the Prophets. He says indeed (Prol. 
p. cvii.) that he saw and had in his possession 
some other manuscripts belonging to the Royal 
Library: but it does not appear that he ever 
used them. Nor did he make much use even 
of the manuscripts, which he did collate. Their 
various readings are not regularly quoted at the 
bottom of the page as is usual in critical editions 
of the Greek Testament: they are introduced 
occasionalhj in the Notes, which are subjoined to 
each chapter: and when they are introduced, 
which is not very often, they are introduced 
chiefly for the purpose of supporting such read- 


216 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


ings, as the editor himself preferred. The gene¬ 
ral evidence therefore, which a collation of manu¬ 
scripts affords, is here withholden. In fact the 
learned editor himself, as appears from what he 
says in his Prolegomena, attached little or no 
value to any of the Hebrew manuscripts now 
extant: and, though he allows them a place 
among the sources of emendation, that place 
appears, both from his principles, and from his 
practice, to have been rather nominal than real. 
Like his predecessor Morinus, he attached much 
greater importance to the readings of the Septua- 
gint, and other ancient versions. Like Morinus 
too, he uniformly preferred the text of the Sama¬ 
ritan to the text of the Hebrew Pentateuch. 
Now though it cannot be denied, that the Sama¬ 
ritan Pentateuch is of great importance to a 
biblical critic, though it is probable that many 
of its readings are preferable to the correspondent 
readings of the Hebrew, yet to assume as a gene¬ 
ral principle, that the Hebrew is faulty, or even 
to be suspected, because it differs from the Sama¬ 
ritan, is to regulate our judgement by a single 
evidence, where other witnesses are at least en¬ 
titled to be heard. But there was a fourth source 
of emendation, to which Houbigant had more 
frequent recourse than to any other, namely, 
emendation from his own conjecture . And here 
he indulged himself to such a degree, as no 


LECTURE IX. 


217 


sober critic can approve. It is true, that he did 
not obtrude his conjectures on the Hebrew text . 
But he introduced them in his Latin translation, 
which not only accompanied the Hebrew, but 
was afterwards printed separately, and is neces¬ 
sarily more read than the original. Though he 
professed therefore to adopt the principles of 
Cappellus, he had not the caution , nor had he 
the sagacity of that eminent critic: and in his 
opposition to the two Buxtorfs he was most defec¬ 
tive where they were most distinguished. We 
must not indeed deny the ingenuity , which he 
sometimes displays in his critical conjectures: but 
if he had known more , he would have conjec¬ 
tured less . He knew too little of the Masora, to 
form a judgement of it: and he rejected, as is 
frequently the case, what he did not fully under¬ 
stand. In short, if we must go into extremes, 
the extreme of the two Buxtorfs is infinitely 
wiser and safer, than the extreme of Houbigant: 
and we had better declare at once, that the 
Hebrew text requires no emendation, than sub¬ 
mit the Bible to the critical licentiousness of an 
editor, who corrects without controul. 

In the same year, in which Houbigant’s 
edition was delivered to the public, Dr. Kenni- 
cott, then Fellow of Exeter College in Oxford, 
published his first Dissertation on the state of 


218 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


the printed Hebrew text, in which he endea¬ 
voured to shew the necessity of the same exten¬ 
sive collation of Hebrew manuscripts, as had 
been already undertaken of the Greek manu¬ 
scripts : and in support of his opinion he exhi¬ 
bited a specimen of various readings from seventy 
Hebrew manuscripts preserved in the Bodleian 
Library. In 1759 he published his second Dis¬ 
sertation, on the state of the printed Hebrew 
text, wherein he also replied to the objections 
which had been made to his first Dissertation. 
And the utility of the proposed collation being 
then very generally admitted, a very liberal sub¬ 
scription was made to defray the expence of the 
collation. The subscription amounted on the 
whole to nearly ten thousand pounds, and the 
name of his late Majesty headed the list of 
subscribers. Various persons were employed, both 
at home and abroad: but of the foreign literati 
the principal was Professor Bruns, of the Uni¬ 
versity of Helmstadt, who not only collated 
Hebrew manuscripts in Germany, but went for 
that purpose into Italy and Switzerland. The 
business of collation continued from 1760 to 1769 
inclusive, during which period Dr. Kennicott 
published annually an account of the progress, 
which was made. More than six hundred He¬ 
brew manuscripts, and sixteen manuscripts of the 
Samaritan Pentateuch were discovered in differ- 


LECTURE IX. 


219 


ent libraries in England and on the Continent: 
many of which were wholly collated, and others 
consulted in important passages. Several years 
of course elapsed, after the collations were finish¬ 
ed, before the materials could be arranged and 
digested for publication. In 1776 the first vo¬ 
lume of Dr. Kennicott’s Hebrew Bible was deli¬ 
vered to the public, and in 1780 the second 
volume. It was printed at the Clarendon Press : 
and the University of Oxford has the honour of 
having produced the first critical edition upon 
a large scale , both of the Greek Testament , and 
of the Hebrew Bible , an honour, which it is 
still maintaining by a similar edition, hitherto 
indeed unfinished, of the Greek Version. 

The text of Kennicott’s edition was printed 
from that of Van der Hooght, with which the 
Hebrew manuscripts, by Kennicott’s direction, 
were all collated. But, as variations in the points 
were disregarded in the collation , the points were 
not added in the text . The various readings, as 
in the critical editions of the Greek Testament, 
were printed at the bottom of the page with refe¬ 
rences to the correspondent readings of the text. 
In the Pentateuch the deviations of the Samari¬ 
tan text were printed in a column parallel to the 
Hebrew: and the variations observable in the 
Samaritan manuscripts, which differ from each 


220 


CltlTICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


other as well as the Hebrew, are likewise noted 
with references to the Samaritan printed text. 
To this collation of manuscripts was added a col¬ 
lation of the most distinguished editions of the 
Hebrew Bible, in the same manner as Wetstein 
has noted the variations observable in the princi¬ 
pal editions of the Greek Testament. Nor did 
Kennicott confine his collation to manuscripts and 
editions. He further considered, that, as the quo¬ 
tations from the Greek Testament in the works 
of ecclesiastical writers afford another source of 
various readings, so the quotations from the 
Hebrew Bible in the works of Jewish writers 
are likewise subjects of critical inquiry. For this 
purpose he had recourse to the most distinguished 
among the Babbinical writings, but particularly 
to the Talmud, the text of which is as ancient as 
the third century. In the quotation of his autho¬ 
rities he designates them by numbers from 1 to 
692, including Manuscripts, Editions, and Rab¬ 
binical writings, which numbers are explained in 
the Dissertatio generalis annexed to the second 
volume. 

This Dissertatio generalis , which corresponds 
to what are called Prolegomena in other critical 
editions, contains, not only an account of the 
manuscripts and other authorities collated for this 
edition, but also a review of the Hebrew text 


LECTURE IX. 


221 

divided into periods, and beginning with the for¬ 
mation of the Hebrew canon after the return of 
the Jews from the Babylonish Captivity. Though 
inquiries of this description unavoidably contain 
matters of doubtful disputation, though the opi¬ 
nions of Kennicott have been frequently ques¬ 
tioned, and sometimes justly questioned, his JDis - 
sertatio generalis is a work of great interest to 
every biblical scholar. Kennicottt was a disciple 
of Cappellus, both in respect to the integrity of 
the Hebrew text, and in respect to the preference 
of the Samaritan Pentateuch : but he avoided the 
extreme, into which Morinus and Houbigant had 
fallen. And though he possessed not the Rab¬ 
binical learning of the two Buxtorfs, his merits 
were greater, than some of his contemporaries, as 
well in England as on the Continent, were willing 
to allow. 

That the mass of various readings exhibited in 
this edition, which greatly surpass in number the 
various readings collected by the industry of three 
centuries for the Greek Testament, contains but 
few of real importance , is no subject of reproach 
to the learned editor, who could only produce 
what his authorities afforded. Nor is he to be 
censured for giving all that he had without 
regard to their relative value. His was the first 
attempt, which was ever made, to give a copious 




CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


collection of Hebrew readings: and he could 
hardly have been justified, if he had exercised 
his own discretion in regard to the portion, which 
should be laid before the public. He wisely 
therefore afforded the opportunity to his readers 
of selecting for themselves : and though his ex¬ 
tracts are rarely of much value for the purpose of 
critical emendation, they enable us, both to form 
an estimate of the existing Hebrew manuscripts, 
and to draw some important conclusions in regard 
to the integrity of the Hebrew text. 

The major part of this immense collection 
consists in mere variations of orthography, in the 
fulness or defectiveness of certain words, in the 
addition or subtraction of a mater lectionis, of 
a Van or a Jod. And if we further deduct the 
readings, which are either manifest errata, or in 
other respects are of no value, the important de¬ 
viations will be confined within a very narrow 
compass. In short Dr. Kennicott’s collation has 
contributed to establish the credit of the Masora. 
We learn from it this useful lesson, that although 
a multiplication of written copies will, notwith¬ 
standing all human endeavours, produce variations 
in the text, the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible 
have been so far protected by the operation of the 
Masora, that all which are now extant, both the 
oldest and the newest, may be compared with 


LECTURE IX. 


223 


those manuscripts of the Greek Testament, which 
Grieshach refers to the same edition. 

That the integrity therefore of the Hebrew 
text, from the time when it was fixed by the 
authors of the Masora, has been as strictly pre¬ 
served to the present age, as it is possible to 
preserve an ancient work, is a position, which no 
longer admits a doubt. Another question of equal 
importance is, whether we have sufficient reason 
to believe, that the Masoretic text is itself an 
accurate copy of the sacred writings. In the 
examination of this question Hebrew manuscripts 
are of no use : the oldest now extant are younger 
by some centuries than the Masora itself: and 
therefore they cannot furnish the means of cor¬ 
recting the faults, which the Masorets themselves 
may have committed. For though Ante-Masoretic 
readings should occasionally be found in Hebrew 
manuscripts, it would be very uncritical to correct 
the Masoretic text on their authority alone, unless 
we might take for granted, what we certainly may 
not, that every Masoretic alteration was an alte¬ 
ration for the worse. But if we cannot appeal to 
positive evidence, we must argue from the evidence, 
which the nature of the case admits. It is indeed 
one of those questions, which ought to be holden 
in the affirmative , till we have reason to believe 
the negative. Now the learned Jews of Tiberias, 


224 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


in the third and fourth centuries, must have had 
access to Hebrew manuscripts which were written 
before the Birth of Christ. We know that they 
sought and collated them. We know that their 
exertions to obtain an accurate text were equal to 
their endeavours to preserve it. Why then shall 
we conclude, that they laboured in vain f 

Our notions of integrity must not indeed be 
carried to such an height, as to imply that no de¬ 
viations from the sacred autographs were retained 
in the Masoretic text, that there are no passages 
in our present Hebrew Bibles, which betray 
marks of corruption, and still require critical aid. 
Such passages undoubtedly there are: and we are 
still in want of an edition of the Hebrew Bible, 
conducted on the plan of Griesbach’s Greek 
Testament. Kennicott’s edition brought us hardly 
so far in the Criticism of the former, as Mill’s 
edition in the Criticism of the latter. In the years 
1784—1788 John Bernard de Rossi of Parma 
published four quarto volumes (afterwards augmen¬ 
ted by a supplemental volume) of extracts from 
Hebrew manuscripts, which form a considerable 
addition to Kennicott’s collations: and in 1793 
an edition of the Hebrew Bible was published 
at Leipzig by Doederlein and Meisner, with the 
most important readings, which had been given 
both by Kennicott and Dr. Rossi. But we still 


LECTURE IX. 


225 


want an edition of the Hebrew Bible, in which 
the readings of manuscripts are united, as in 
critical editions of the Greek Testament, with 
judicious extracts from the ancient versions. 
Such an edition would supply the materials, 
which if carefully used, might enable us in various 
places to correct what appears inaccurate. 

The history of the printed Hebrew text being 
now brought to a conclusion, it is necessary 
according to the general plan to describe the 
Authors who have illustrated the Criticism of 
the Hebrew Bible, according to its several 
departments. This description will form the 
subject of the following Lecture. 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


LECTURE X. 

In the enumeration of the authors, who have 
best explained the several departments of Hebrew 
Criticism, we may proceed by a method similar 
to that, which was adopted in respect to the 
Greek Testament. 

As a general and elementary treatise on the 
Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Hr. Gerard’s 
Institutes already mentioned in the seventh 
Lecture, may be again recommended. Though 
it relates as well to the Interpretation, as to the 
Criticism of the Bible properly so called, and 
both subjects are comprehended under one name, 
yet, as they are not confounded, it will be easy 
to select such parts, as immediately relate to our 
present inquiry. 


A knowledge of the editions of the Hebrew 
Bible may be best obtained from the first volume 



LECTURE X. 


227 


of the Bibliotheca sacra , as published by Masch. 
An account both of the original and of the last 
edition of this work was given in the seventh 
Lecture, and therefore it is unnecessary at present 
to observe any thing more, than what particularly 
relates to the Hebrew Bible. On this subject 
the learned editor is much more diffuse, and 
much more profound, than in the account, which 
he has given of the editions of the Greek 
Testament. In his description of the Hebrew 
Bible he confines himself not merely to the 
external history of the editions, but occasionally 
institutes critical inquiries in respect to the 
formation of their text. He has given also a pre¬ 
liminary dissertation Be codicum Hebraicorum 
diversitatibus 9 in which the editions of the 
Hebrew Bible are divided into two classes, the 
one called Masoretic, the other Amasoretic. The 
former class comprises the Hebrew Bibles, which 
have the marginal readings of the Masora, and is 
subdivided into two portions, according as those 
readings are quoted, either wholly, or only in 
part. The second class comprises those editions, 
in which the readings of the Masora are unnoticed. 
An account of the editions of the Hebrew Bible 
to the year 1730 is given also in the second and 
fourth volumes of Wolfii Bibliotheca Hebrcea. 
De Rossi of Parma has greatly contributed to our 
knowledge of the early editions of the Hebrew 


228 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


Bibles, both by his Disquisitio critica de He- 
braicce typographies origine, published at Parma 
in 1776, and by his Apparatus Hebrceo-B'iblicus , 
published at Parma in 1782. But all the in¬ 
formation, communicated on this subject, as well 
by De Bossi as by Wolf, has been transferred 
to the Bibliotheca sacra by Masch, either in the 
first or in the supplementary volume. With no 
less industry and fidelity has the author of the 
Bibliographical Dictionary (noticed in the 
seventh Lecture) availed himself of the labours 

of his predecessors.-The critical editions of the 

Hebrew Bible are described in Dr. Kennicott’s 
Dissertatio generalis: and a critical dissertation 
on the editions of the Bible, which preceded 
the London Polyglot, is contained in the fourth 
chapter of Walton’s Prolegomena. These Prole¬ 
gomena, to which we shall have frequent occasion 
to refer, and which contain an inestimable treasure 
of Oriental literature, were reprinted in octavo at 
Leipzig in 1777, by I. A. Dathe, Professor of 
the Oriental Languages in that University, who 
accompanied that edition with a valuable preface. 
The Dissertatio generalis was likewise reprinted 
in octavo at Brunswick, in 1783, by Professor 
Bruns of Helmstadt, who was Kennicott’s chief 
assistant in the collation of Hebrew manuscripts, 
and who accompanied the edition both with a 
preface and notes. 



LECTURE X. 


229 


Of manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible some 
account is given in the fourth chapter of Walton’s 
Prolegomena. In the folio edition of the Biblio¬ 
theca sacra , published in 1723, a catalogue of 
the Hebrew manuscripts is given as far as they 
were then known. In the second and fourth 
volumes of the Bibliotheca Hebrcea , the latter 
of which was published in 1733, a further account 
is given of the then-known Hebrew manuscripts. 
To this work should he added H. F. Koecheri 
Nova Bibliotheca Hebraic a, published at Jena 
in 1783 and 1784, in two volumes quarto, as 
a supplement to that of Wolf. Till the collation 
was made for Dr. Kennicott’s edition our know¬ 
ledge of Hebrew manuscripts was confined to 
a very small number. This number however was 
so increased by that collation, that they now 
amount to more than six hundred. They are 
all enumerated by Dr. Kennicott in his Dis- 
sertatio generalis; and the learned editor has 
related in what library each manuscript is pre¬ 
served, by what mark or number it is there 
known, what books it contains, in what year it 
was written, (where a date is annexed to it), or 
to what century he himself refers it (where the 
manuscript has no date), whether it is written 
in Spanish or German hand, and (whenever an 
account of it has been already published) what 
author or authors may be further consulted. The 


230 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


Dissertatio generalis therefore is the work, which 
is always to be examined in the first instance by 
those, who are desirous of obtaining information 
on any Hebrew manuscript, which had been 
collated before 1770, when Kennicott’s collation 
was closed. A valuable supplement to Kennicott’s 
catalogue is contained in the following work. 
Apparatus Hebrceo - biblicus , seu manuscripti, 
editique codices Sacri Textus, quos possidet 
novceque variantium lectionum collationi destinat 

Jo. Bern, de Rossi . Parmce, 1782. 8 vo. -But 

whoever wishes to become more intimately ac¬ 
quainted with the nature of Hebrew manuscripts 
in general, must consult the following work by 
Professor O. G. Tychsen, of the University of 
Rostock in Mecklenburg: Tentamen de variis 
codicum Hebraicorum Vderis Testamenti manu- 
scriptorum generibus, a Judceis et non Judceis 
descriptis, eorumque in classes certas distribu - 
tione , et antiquitatis et bonitatis characteribus. 
Rostochii , 1772. 8vo. In addition to the rules, 
which it prescribes, for judging of the antiquity, 
country, writer, &c. of Hebrew manuscripts, it 
has digressions on other points of Hebrew litera¬ 
ture, which shall he noticed in the sequel.—In 
determining the antiquity of Hebrew manuscripts, 
it may he useful likewise to consult a short 
treatise by Professor Schnurrer of Tubingen, 
entitled, De codicum Hebrceoruni Veteris Testa* 



LECTURE X. 


231 


menti (state difficulter determinancy, printed in 
his Dissertationes philologico-criticce, which were 
published at Gotha and Amsterdam in 1790, 
octavo. They, who are acquainted with German, 
will find the most perspicuous, and the most 
systematic account of Hebrew manuscripts in the 

second volume of Eichhorn’s Introduction.- 

Beside the manuscripts in Hebrew letters, six¬ 
teen manuscripts of the Pentateuch in Samaritan 
letters were collated for Kennicott’s edition, of 
which an account is given in the catalogue of 
manuscripts in the Dissertatio generalise It was 
related in the eighth Lecture, that we first 
became acquainted with the Samaritan Pentateuch 
at the beginning of the seventeenth century; 
that the first known copy of it was deposited in 
the library of the Oratory at Paris; and that 
the deviation of its text from that of the Hebrew 
Pentateuch gave rise to a controversy on the 
subject of their relative value. But an account 
of the principal authors on this subject will be 
more properly given, when we come to that de¬ 
partment, which relates to the utility and appli¬ 
cation of various readings.-The Samaritan 

Pentateuch was first printed in the Paris Polyglot 
under the inspection of Morinus, and was reprinted 
by Walton in the London Polyglot. In these 
editions it is printed in the Samaritan character. 
In 1790 the late Dr. Blayney, Hebrew Professor 




232 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


at Oxford, published it, in an octavo volume, in 
the Hebrezv character, which had been already 
used by Houbigant and Kennicott, in printing the 
deviations of the Samaritan text. Dr. Blayney’s 
edition is moreover accompanied with the readings 
of the Samaritan manuscripts (collated for Ken- 
nicott’s edition) which differ from the printed 
Samaritan text. 

On the ancient versions of the Hebrew Bible, 
which open a second source of various readings, 
our means of information are very ample. A con¬ 
siderable part of Walton’s Prolegomena is devoted 
to this subject: and they are particularly valuable 
in respect to the oriental versions, which are 
described in the six last chapters. The second 
book of Simon's critical History of the Old 
Testament is wdiolly employed on the translations 
of it, both ancient and modern, though the latter 
are of no value in a critical history of the Hebrew 
text, on which account the notice of Lewis’s and 
other histories of our English translations must 
be reserved for the second branch of Theology, 
the Interpretation of the Bible. In Carpzov’s 
Critica sacra Veteris Testamenti, printed at 
Leipzig in 1728, quarto, the second part con¬ 
tains also an account of the translations of the 
Old Testament. A popular account is given of 
them in the second volume of Prideaux’s Con - 


LECTURE X. 


233 


nexion: and also in Dr. Brett’s Dissertation on 
the ancient Versions of the Bible , of which the 
second edition was published in London in 1760, 
and is reprinted in the third volume of Bishop 
Watson’s Theological Tracts. The object of this 
latter work, as the author declares on the title- 
page, was to shew the excellent use, that may 
be made of the ancient versions towards attain¬ 
ing the true readings of the Holy Scriptures in 
doubtful places. But that, which far surpasses 
all other works on the critical application of the 
ancient versions, is Eichhorn’s Introduction to 
the Old Testament, in which the latter half of 

the first volume is devoted to this subject.- 

The best account of the editions of the ancient 
versions is given in the second part of the 
Bibliotheca sacra , published by Masch. No work 
contains so many of the ancient versions, and 
so well arranged, as the London Polyglot. 

As the Septuagint is not only the most ancient 
version of the Hebrew Bible, but is frequently 
quoted in the Greek Testament, and as it is like¬ 
wise more familiar to us, than any other ancient 
version, the Latin only excepted*, the authors. 


* The history of the Latin Version has been already given 
in the second Lecture. It is only the Latin Vulgate, made by 
Jerom from the Hebrew, which can be applied to the Criticism 
of the Hebrew Bible. The old Latin version published by 

Sabatier 




234 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


who have written on it, deserve more particular 
notice. The first writer, who instituted a syste¬ 
matic inquiry into the Septuagint version, was 
Archbishop Usher in a work entitled De Grceca 
Septuaginta interpretum Versione Syntagma , 
printed in London in 1655, quarto. It is divided 
into nine chapters, and relates to the origin of 
the version according to the account of Aristeas 
(then supposed to be genuine), to the time when 
and the place where it was written, to the 
alterations which were gradually made in its text, 
to the corrections of Origen, to the modern 
editions, and other subjects, with which these 
are immediately connected. This is a work of 
great merit; it displays much original inquiry, 
and may he regarded as the ground-work of 
later publications on the Septuagint. In 1661 
Isaac Vossius published at the Hague, in quarto, 
his work entitled De Septuaginta interpretibus, 
eorumque tralatione et chronologia dissertationes. 
Isaac Vossius was such an admirer of the Septu¬ 
agint, that he ascribed to it more authority, than 


Sabatier (at Rheims in 1743, in three volumes folio,) being 
in the Old Testament made from the Septuagint, applies 
immediately to the Criticism of the Septuagint. In the 
edition of the Bibliotheca sacra , Part II. Vol. III. as published 
by Masch, both versions are fully described. Much infor¬ 
mation on the subject of the Vulgate may be obtained from 
Hody’s work De textibus, <^c. 



LECTURE X. 


235 


to the original itself. But he met with a very 
powerful adversary in Humphrey Hody, then a 
young man and Fellow of Wadham College in 
Oxford, who in 1685 published in London, in 
octavo, his treatise entitled Contra historiam 
Aristece de LXX. interpretibus dissertatio: in 
qua probatur illam a Judceo aliquo confectam 
fuisse ad conciliandam authoritaiem Versioni 
Grcecce ; et clarissimi doctissimique viri D. Isaaci 
Vossii aliorumque defensiones ejusdem examini 
subjiciuntur . This very acute and learned writer 
has clearly proved his position in respect to the 
writing which bears the name of Aristeas: some 
feeble efforts were made indeed to defend the 
authenticity of that writing, especially by Whiston 
in an Appendix to his Literal Accomplishment of 
Scripture Prophecies: but the opinion of Hody 
is at present very generally adopted. In 1705 
Hody, who was then become Greek Professor 
and Archdeacon of Oxford, published the work 
already quoted in the fourth Lecture, De Bibli - 
orum textibus originalibus , Versionibus Greeds 
et Latina Vulgata libri quatuor. This is the 
classical work on the Septuagint: but there are 
others which are worthy of notice, especially two 
publications by Dr. Henry Owen, Hector of St. 
Olave, Hart Street, the one An Enquiry into the 
present state of the Septuagint Version of the 
Old Testament; London, 1769, 3vo; the other 


2536 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


A brief Account historical and critical of the 
Septuagint Version of the Old Testament . 
London , 1787, 8^0. The author, who is himself 
an excellent critic, treads closely in the footsteps 
of Hody. The last work especially should be 
read by every man, who wishes to be acquainted 
with the history of the Septuagint. The following 
is likewise a very useful work, as it represents 
both concisely and perspicuously the several topics, 
which suggest themselves for consideration on the 
origin of the Septuagint version. De origine 
versionis Septuaginta interpretum: auctore S. 
T. Muecke, Conrectore Lycei Soraviensis. Zul- 

lichovice , 1788, 8t w. -The authors on some 

particular subjects connected with the utility and 
application of various readings will be noticed 
when we come to that department. 

The editions of the Septuagint, are fully de¬ 
scribed in the second volume of the second part 
of the j Bibliotheca sacra , as published by Masch; 
to which description is prefixed an account of the 
origin, both of the Septuagint and the other 
Greek versions of the Bible. It may be proper 
to observe that there are four principal or cardi-r 
nal editions of the Septuagint, from one or more 
of which all the other editions of the Septuagint 
have been copied; namely the Complutensian, 
the Aldine, the Homan of Sixtus V., and Grabe’s 



LECTURE X. 


237 


edition. The Complutensian Septuagint bears 
the date of 1515 ; it was printed from a collation 
of Greek manuscripts, which the editors highly 
extol, hut of which we have no further knowledge. 
The Aldine edition was published at Venice in 
1518, two years after the death of Aldus Manu- 
tius. The text of this edition was likewise 
formed from several Greek manuscripts, but was 
interpolated in various places from other Greek 
versions. The Roman edition of Sixtus V., 
which appeared in 1587, was copied from the 
celebrated Codex Vaticanus , with the exception 
of such words as the editors regarded in the light 
of errata. But as such corrections depended 
wholly on the judgement of the editors, and it is 
of importance to know the real readings of the 
Codex Vaticanus, Dr. Holmes in his edition of 
the Pentateuch has carefully noted the differ¬ 
ences, however minute, between the text of the 
Roman edition and of the Vatican manuscript. 
Grabe’s edition was taken from the no less cele¬ 
brated Codex Alexandrinus, and was printed at 
Oxford in four folio volumes at different times 
from 1707 to 1720. But though this edition 
has the Codex Alexandrinus for its basis , it is 
far from being a mere copy of that manuscript: 
for Grabe (also Lee who continued it after 
Grabe’s death) adopted many readings partly from 
the Roman edition, partly from other manu- 


238 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


scripts, where those readings were believed to be 
genuine. The most convenient edition is that 
of Breitinger, published at Zurich in 1730—1732 
in four quarto volumes: for it contains the text 
of Grabe’s edition with the deviations of the 
Roman edition in the margin.—Hitherto no col¬ 
lation of manuscripts of the Septuagint had been 
undertaken upon an extensive scale. In 1779 
Dr. White, Arabic (afterwards Hebrew) Profes¬ 
sor at Oxford, published a Letter to the Bishop 
of London, suggesting a plan for a new edition 
of the Septuagint. In the same year Mr. Stroth, 
Master of the Grammar School at Gotha, pub¬ 
lished in the fifth volume of Eichhorn’s Reper- 
torium the first part of his Catalogue of MSS. 
of the JLXX ., which he continued in the eighth 
and eleventh volumes. In 1788 Dr. Holmes 
(afterwards Dean of Winchester) published at 
Oxford proposals fora collation of all the known 
manuscripts of the Septuagint. The undertaking 
was promoted by the Delegates of the Clarendon 
Press; a subscription was made toward defraying 
the expence; literary men were engaged in va¬ 
rious parts of the Continent for the business of 
collation; and Dr. Holmes published annually 
an account of the progress which was made. In 
1798 he published at Oxford the Book of 
Genesis, which was successively followed by the 
other books of the Pentateuch, making together 


LECTURE X. 


239 


one folio volume, with one title-page, and one 
general Preface. From this general Preface it 
appears, that eleven Greek manuscripts in uncial 
letters, and more than an hundred manuscripts in 
small letters, containing either the whole or parts 
of the Pentateuch, were collated for this edition. 
They are all described in the second and third 
chapters. And as the text of this edition is a 
copy of the Roman edition of 1587, the deviations 
from it observable in the three other cardinal 
editions, the Complutensian, the Aldine, and 
Grabe’s edition, are constantly noted. The quo¬ 
tations, which are found in the works of the 
Greek Fathers, are likewise alleged: and finally 
the various readings of the ancient versions, 
namely of such as were made from the Sep - 
tuagint , for versions made immediately from the 
Hebrew , can furnish no various readings for the 
emendation of the Greek. The plan therefore 
of this edition is good: it is that which had 
been already applied by Mill, Wetstein, and 
Griesbach to the Greek Testament. Nor is the 
execution of the plan to be less commended: it 
displays uncommon industry, and apparently great 
accuracy. The learned editor died in 1806: but 
shortly before his death he published the Book 
of Daniel, both according to the Septuagint ver¬ 
sion and that of Theodotion, the latter only 
having been printed in former editions, because 


240 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


the Septuagint version of this book is not con¬ 
tained in the common manuscripts, and was un¬ 
known till it was printed at Rome in 1772 from 
a manuscript belonging to Cardinal Chigi. Since 
the death of Dr. Holmes, the continuation of 
this important work has been undertaken by Mr. 
Parsons, who has properly resumed it with the 
historical books as they follow the Pentateuch, 
and from the specimen which he has already 
given, the Book of Joshua, appears well worthy 
of the task, which has been committed to his 
care. Every friend of biblical literature must 
wish to see the completion of this edition.—On 
the application of the Septuagint version to the 
criticism of the Hebrew Bible may be consulted 
the two following works: F. V\ Reinhardi Dis- 
sertatio de versionis Alexandrince authoritate et 
usu in constituenda librorum Hebraicorum lec- 
tione genuina . Vitembergre , 1777, 4 to. — G. C . 
Knappii Dissertatio de versione Alexandrina in 
emendanda lectione exempli Hebraici caute adhi- 

benda . P. i. n. Halce, 1775, 1776, Mo. -The 

authors who have applied the Septuagint to the 
explanation of the Bible will be mentioned under 
the second branch of Theology. 

Having already mentioned two sources of 
various readings, Hebrew manuscripts, and an¬ 
cient versions, with the writers, from whom the 



LECTURE X. 


241 


best information may be derived on those sub¬ 
jects, we may now proceed to the third source, 
which consists of quotations from the Hebrew 
Bible, which are found in the works of ancient 
authors. Philo and Josephus, who wrote in 
Greek and used the Septuagint version, if not 
exclusively, at least chiefly, especially the former, 
are of very little use in the criticism of the 
Hebreuf Bible. The Talmud, and such other 
Rabbinical works as contain quotations from the 
Hebrew, are alone of any value. The Talmud 
(a word which signifies literally doctrine) may 
be regarded as the Corpus doctrince Judaicce: 
and as the precepts, which it contains, relate not 
merely to doctrines properly so called, but to cere¬ 
monies as well civil as religious, it has not been 
improperly termed Judceorum jus civile et cano - 
nicum. The text of it which is called Mislina, was 
compiled in the second century by Rabbi Jehuda 
Hakkadosh; a commentary called Gemara, was 
added to it at Jerusalem, and another commentary 
bearing the same name was afterwards added to 
it in Babylon. The text of the Talmud is some¬ 
times accompanied with the former, at other 
times with the latter commentary; and the text 
and commentary together receive the appellation 
of Talmud of Jerusalem, or Talmud of Babylon, 
according to the commentary, which is annexed. 
For the different editions of the Talmud the 
Q 


242 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


first and fourth volumes of Woljii Bibliotheca 
Hebrcea must be consulted. That of Surenhu- 
sius (Amsterdam 1698—1703, six tom. fol.) con¬ 
tains only the Mishna: but it is accompanied 
with a Latin translation. The contents of the 
Mishna are described in the second part of the 
Antiquitates Hebrceorum , published by Professor 
Wahner at Gottingen in 1743, in two volumes 

octavo.-It was observed in the preceding 

Lecture, that the Talmud was collated for Dr. 
Kennicott’s edition: several other Rabbinical 
works were collated, which are mentioned in 
the Dissertatio generalis , and of which a more 
ample account must be sought in the Biblio¬ 
theca Hebrcea. 

The fourth and last source of emendation in 
the Hebrew text is critical conjecture. It was 
asserted in the seventh Lecture, that the words 
of the Greek Testament ought in no case to 
be altered from conjecture: and this rule has 
been strictly observed by Griesbach. But in the 
Hebrew Bible there are various reasons against 
the total exclusion of conjectural emendation, 
though no’ prudent critic will approve of it, when 
carried to excess. The causes of accidental error 
in the transcribing of Hebrew manuscripts were 
more numerous, as was shewn in the eighth Lec¬ 
ture, than in the transcribing of Greek manu- 



LECTURE X. 


243 


scripts. Hence the very long period, which elapsed 
between the time when the hooks of the Old 
Testament, especially the Pentateuch, were com¬ 
posed, and the time, when even the oldest of the 
now-existing Hebrew manuscripts were written, 
may have occasioned in various places the genu¬ 
ine reading to be totally lost. And the circum¬ 
stance, that all the Hebrew manuscripts now 
extant belong, as it were, to one edition , renders 
the probability, that in various places the genuine 
reading is contained in no Hebrew manuscript 
now extant, still greater. The means therefore 
of correcting from authority are less ample, than 
in the Greek Testament; and consequently con¬ 
jectural emendation may be allowable in the 
former, though not in the latter. Besides, con¬ 
jectural emendation is not liable to the abuse in 
the Old Testament, to which it is liable in the 
New: conjectura theologica in the form of con- 
jectura critica does not so easily find room 
in the former, as it does in the latter. Hence 
Bishop Lowth in his translation of Isaiah (Lon¬ 
don, 1778, quarto) not only corrected in many 
places the common Hebrew text on the authority 
of manuscripts % but sometimes introduced emen- 


* It is worthy of notice, though the remark is foreign to 
the present paragraph, that Michaelis in his German trans¬ 
lation of Isaiah, which was made about the same time, and of 
q 2 which 




244 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


clations from mere conjecture. Yet even Lowth 
has been supposed to have taken this liberty 
too often, especially by Professor Kocher of Bern 
in a dissertation entitled Vindicice S. textus He - 
brcei Esaice Vatis , adversus D. Roberti Lowthi, 
Venerandi Episcopi Londinensis, Criticam, printed 
at Bern in 1786, and reprinted at Tubingen in 
1790. The principles of Houbigant, who car¬ 
ried his conjectures beyond all bounds, have been 
very ably combated in the following work: *Se- 
baldi Ravii Exercitationes philologicce in C. F. 
Hubingantii Prolegomena in Scripturam sacram . 
Lugduni Batavorum, 1785, 4fo. Indeed before 
we have recourse to the desperate remedy of alter¬ 
ing an author’s words from our own conjecture, 
we should be fully satisfied that no mode of 
interpretation will remove the difficulties, which 
may present themselves. Under the different 
modes of interpretation may be reckoned also 
the different modes of pronouncing , or, which is 
the same thing, of pointing , the same word. 


which nearly one half was printed when Lowth’s Isaiah 
appeared, has in most places, where he has preferred a various 
reading to the common text, agreed in the choice of that 
reading with Lowth. This coincidence, without previous 
concert, between two such eminent critics, argues strongly in 
favour of the adopted readings. The readings here meant are 
readings really existing, either in manuscripts, or ancient 
versions: for on the subject of conjectural emendations Mi- 
chaelis and Lowth did not agree. 



LECTURE X. 


245 


Michaelis, in his German translation of the He¬ 
brew Bible, has frequently recourse to an altera-, 
tion of the points: but he made it a rule never 
to alter the consonants, that is, the words them¬ 
selves, except in cases of extreme necessity. 

The last department of Hebrew criticism, 
which we have to consider, is the utility and 
application of various readings . This depart¬ 
ment has been rendered very extensive by the 
turn, which the criticism of the Hebrew Bible 
took at the beginning of the seventeenth century. 
We have seen that the elder Buxtorf denied the 
very existence of various readings to the Hebrew 
Bible. The history of the controversy, which 
consequently took place between Cappellus and 
the younger Buxtorf, on the integrity of the 
Hebrew text, was given in the preceding Lec¬ 
ture, where the works were also quoted, which 
were published at that period. The Critica sacra 
of Cappellus, which has ever remained a stand¬ 
ard work, was again published at Halle in 1775— 
1786 in three octavo volumes, with very valua¬ 
ble Notes by Professor Vogel at Halle, and 
Professor Scharfenberg at Leipzig. Another very 
excellent work is the Critica Sacra Veteris Testa¬ 
menti, published at Leipzig in 1795 by Professor 
Bauer of Altorf. It is in fact a revision of the 
first section in the second volume of Glass'd phi - 


246 CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 

lologia sacra , which relates to the criticism of 
the Bible, as the second section relates to the in¬ 
terpretation of it. Glass, who was Professor at 
Jena in the seventeenth century, had adopted 
Buxtorf’s high notions of integrity, which are 
properly modified in Professor Bauer’s revision 
of the work. Carpzov in his Critica Sacra Vete- 
teris Testamenti, published at Leipzig in 1728, 
quarto, adheres likewise too closely to those high 
notions: but if proper allowance be made on this 
account, it will he found to be a very useful work, 
and replete with information on the subject of 
Hebrew Criticism. 

With the inquiries, which have been insti¬ 
tuted on the integrity of the Hebrew text, two 
other questions have been mixed, which have no 
necessary connexion with it, namely the antiquity 
of our present Hebrew characters, and our present 
Hebrew points; for, as was observed in the 
preceding Lecture, the letters may have been 
changed, the points may he new, yet the words 
may have remained the same. But the two Bux- 
torfs, and other writers who have carried to the 
highest pitch their notions on the integrity of 
the Hebrew text, have considered this integrity, 
which in reality relates only to the preservation 
of the words, as including the unchangeableness 
of the forms , in which the words are expressed. 


LECTURE X. 


247 


They defended the latter therefore with as much 
warmth as the former: and represented such 
critics, as Cappellus and Walton, who denied to 
the shadow what they allowed to the substance, 
as men impeaching the integrity of the sacred 
writings. Hence Professor Wasmuth at Rostock 
published a quarto volume in 1664, entitled Vin - 
dicice Sacrce Hebrcece Scripturce, in which he 
undertakes to defend what he calls originalis 
authentia divina , tarn vocalium et accentuum , 
quam ipsarum literarum sacri textus Hebrcei; 
and this defence is conducted, as he further says 
on the title-page, adversus impia et imperita 
multorum prcejudicia , imprimis contra Cappelli, 
Vossii F., et Waltoni , autoris operis Anglicani 
7ro\vy\ioTTov, assertiones falsissimas pariter et 
perniciocissimas. But in later times these ques¬ 
tions have been discussed with greater calmness, 
in proportion as the defence of them appeared 
less necessary for the purpose of religion. With 
respect to the letters , the controversy between 
Johannes Morinus and Cappellus on the one 
hand, and the younger Buxtorf on the other, 
has been already related in the eighth Lecture. 
The opinion of the two former, that the Sama¬ 
ritan were the ancient letters of the Jews was 
very ably supported by Walton in the third 
chapter of his Prolegomena. On the other hand, 
Steph. Morinus, a French protestant clergyman. 


248 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


in his Exercitationes de lingua primceva (pub¬ 
lished at Utrecht in 1694, quarto,) and Wolf 
in the second volume of his Bibliotheca Hebrcea , 
have defended the antiquity of the Hebrew let¬ 
ters. The latest and most useful work on this 
subject is, Josephi Dobrowshy de antiquis He - 
brceorum char acteribus clissertatio. Pragce, 1783, 
8 vo. This tract contains in a short compass a 
perspicuous statement of all the arguments, both 
for and against the antiquity of the Hebrew 
letters: and the conclusion which the author 
deduces is, that not the Hebrew , but that the 
Samaritan was the ancient alphabet of the Jews. 
That the present Hebrew or Chaldee character 
was not used by the Jews before the Babylonish 
Captivity is an opinion, which is now almost uni¬ 
versally received, and the truth of it seems no 
longer disputable. But it is still a question 
whether the Samaritan letters, in the form in 
which we now find them in manuscripts of the 
Samaritan Pentateuch , were the letters used by 
the Jews before the Babylonish Captivity. Now 
as letters are-continually liable to some trifling 
alteration, according to the taste or fancy of tran¬ 
scribers, and alterations, though at first insensible, 
will by frequent repetition in the course of two 
or three thousand years, produce such changes, 
that the modern form becomes materially differ¬ 
ent from the ancient one, it is highly probable 


LECTURE X. 249 

if we argue from analogy, that the Samaritan 
letters, which are used in the manuscripts now 
extant, are in many respects different from those 
which were used by the Jews and Samaritans 
before the Babylonish Captivity. But what was 
the form of the letters then in use among them, 
or even by what name that alphabet should be 
called, are questions on which the learned are 
divided, and on which, for want of data, it is 
impossible perhaps to come to a decision. Many 
writers call this alphabet the old Samaritan: 
Professor Bauer in the Critica sacra above- 
quoted calls it Phoenician : Eichhorn in his In¬ 
troduction calls it Phcenician-Egyptian: Michaelis 
seems undetermined about the name , though he 
is equally of opinion that the ancient alphabet 
differed from the present Samaritan, as well as 
from the Hebrew. A detailed account of the 
authors, who by the aid of inscriptions and 
medals have endeavoured to trace the forms of 
the ancient letters in question, of whom the prin¬ 
cipal are Bayer, Caylus, Biittner, and Dutens, 
would occasion a digression, which however inte¬ 
resting in itself, is not immediately connected 
with critical theology. 

Of the Hebrew points the antiquity has been 
no less contested, than that of the Hebrew letters: 
and here again their advocates have considered 


250 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


their antiquity as so connected with the integrity 
of the text, that they have argued for the divine 
origin of the Hebrew points. The controversy 
between Cappellus and the younger Buxtorf on 
this subject was related in the eighth Lecture, 
where the works were quoted, which appeared on 
that occasion. The Arcanum punctationis reroe- 
latum , first printed in 1624, was reprinted in 
L. Cappelli Commentarii et notce criticce in V°tus 
Testamentum, which were published at Amsterdam 
in 1689 by his son, who prefixed to it a clear and 
useful statement of the controversy. In the same 
work w r as published also the Vindicice mentioned 
in the eighth Lecture. The subject was so ex¬ 
hausted by the original combatants, that from this 
period the respective advocates, who were numerous 
on each side, and whom it would be tedious to 
enumerate, had only to repeat the arguments of 
their leaders. At length Albert Schultens, Pro¬ 
fessor of the Oriental languages at Leyden, in his 
Institutiones ad fundamenta linguce Hebrcece, 
published at Leyden in 1737 and reprinted in 
1756, proposed a middle path between the two 
extremes: and as Schultens was a man of great 
authority, it will not be improper to quote his 
words. In the second section, after a statement 
of the arguments, which had been advanced for 
and against the antiquity of the points, he says, 
“ Controversia simplicius proposita non ita diffi - 


LECTURE X. 


251 


culter componi potuisset, si sola veritas qucesita 
fuisset. Amputa qucestionis appendices, de hodier- 
nis figuris et nominibus vocalium, de Schevatibus, 
de accentuum numero et munere multiplici: dis¬ 
quire dein quid verisimilius , adfuerintne inde ab 
antiquissimis temporibus vocales, an non ? Hoc 
ip sum quoque adhuc restringe , et disputa , an non 
ibi saltern vocalium notulae adjectce a sacris scrip - 
toribus, ubi summa necessitas id postulabat. Hoc 
negare non valde verecundum; ulterius quid 
exigere imprudens et bonce causce noxium. His 
Jinibus si lis hcecce semet coerceat , concordia inter 
criticos et theologos sponte coibit: et puncta vo- 
calia communi consensu justum ilium et naturalem 
locum obtinebunt, quern indoles linguce Hebrcece , 
quern usus Orient is 3 inde a primaeva origine, iisdem 

inter Chaldceos, Syi'os, Arabes assignavit.” - 

In 1769 Michaelis, who had formerly defended 
the antiquity of the present points, adopted in the 
second volume of his Miscellaneous Works (Ver- 
mischte Schriften) published in that year, the 
middle path proposed by Schultens. He admitted 
on the one hand, that our present system of 
punctuation was invented and introduced by the 
Masorets: but he maintained on the other hand, 
that even in the earliest ages the Hebrews made 
at least occasional use of some vowel points.—In 
the thirty-sixth volume of the History of the 
Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres pub- 



252 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


lished at Paris in 1775 is a very valuable Disser¬ 
tation by Dupuy, (directed chiefly against the 
system of MasclefF and his followers) in which 
the same medium is observed as by Schultens and 

Michaelis.-In the eighteenth volume of Eich- 

liorn’s Repertorium is a dissertation by Trende¬ 
lenburg, of which the object is to prove that the 
ancient Hebrews had three vowel marks. And 
Eichhorn in his Introduction to the Old Testa¬ 
ment, §. 62 , says, “ From the preceding remarks 
it appears, that we may draw the certain conclusion, 
that the ancient Hebrews had vowel marks , but 
not the whole number of those which are now in 
use, probably only three ; that the ancient Hebrew 
authors provided their writings with vowel marks, 
not indeed throughout, but only here and there , 
in difficult ambiguous passages; and that our 
present system of punctuation was introduced in 
some later age, probably after Hebrew had ceased 
to be a living language.” The question is very 
clearly stated by Eichhorn: but as these Lectures 
are not intended to convey long dissertations on 
any single subjects, it would be foreign to their 
purpose to translate more. The opinion of Schul¬ 
tens, Michaelis, and Eichhorn is now the common 
opinion of the Oriental scholars in Germany. We 
must except indeed Professor Tychsen, who has 
uniformly adhered to the system of Buxtorf. In 
our own country, Walton, Kennicott, Lowth, and 


LECTURE X. 


253 


many other distinguished Hebrew scholars have 
sided with Cappellus. Among the few, who in 
later times have defended the antiquity of the 
present points, may he mentioned Dr. James 
Robertson, Professor of the Oriental languages at 
Edinburgh, who prefixed to his Clavis Pentateuclii> 
published at Edinburgh in 1770, a JDissertcitio 
de genuina punctorum vocaliam Hebraicorum 
Antiqiiitate *. 


* If our present Hebrew points are an invention of the 
Masorets, the question occurs, whether in learning Hebrew 
we may not discard them, and with MasclefF or Parkhurst 
make a pronunciation for ourselves, especially as the study 
of the language is thereby rendered much easier. To deter¬ 
mine this question we must consider the purpose , for which 
they were introduced. All vowel marks , whether letters or 
points, are representatives of vowel sowids: and the sounds 
must have existed before the marks for them were invented. 
In most languages the vowel sounds are more numerous, 
than the marks which represent them: the French e for in¬ 
stance being pronounced in five different ways. If Hebrew 
therefore, like Arabic, had originally three vowel marks, the 
vowel sounds must have been more numerous than the vowel 
marks, which were used for them. While Hebrew was a living 
language, this paucity of vowel marks, or even the entire want 
of them, could be remedied by known usage. The Jews, who 
returned from the Babylonish Captivity, returned with the lan¬ 
guage of Chaldaea, a language very nearly allied to the Hebrew, 
though somewhat different. Hence arose the custom of read¬ 
ing in the Synagogues in Judaea, first the Hebrew original, 
and then a Chaldee paraphrase. Now the continued custom 



254 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


Though the integrity of the Hebrew text de¬ 
pends not on the decision of the questions, whether 
the points be cooeval with the letters, or whether 
the letters themselves were the original letters of 
the Jews, yet a question of some importance to 
the Criticism of the Bible arose out of the contro¬ 
versy, as conducted by Cappellus and Buxtorf. 
This question is, whether the Hebrew Pentateuch 
or the Samaritan Pentateuch has the greater 
critical authority. Most writers, who have main¬ 
tained the superior antiquity of the Samaritan to 
the Hebrew letters , have hence concluded that the 


of reading in the Synagogue from the Hebrew Scriptures 
must have contributed to preserve among the Jewish Priests 
the pronunciation, which had been in use, while Hebrew was 
a living language. And it is probable, that in the time of our 
Saviour the mode of reading Hebrew was not very different 
from the mode of reading it in the time of David and Solomon. 
After the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and the dispersion 
of the Hebrew Jews, the ancient pronunciation might have 
been entirely lost, if some remedy had not been provided. As 
soon therefore as the Jewish school was established at Tiberias, 
it was a primary object of its learned members to perpetuate 
the Hebrew pronunciation: and this could only be done by 
additional vowel marks. If this account of their origin be true, 
it is adviseable to retain them. The Synagogue Rolls are in¬ 
deed still written without points: but then they are read , as 
if they were pointed throughout, every experienced Rabbi 
knowing from the very form of each word, in what manner it 
should be pointed, and pronounced. 




LECTURE X. 


255 


text of the Samaritan Pentateuch is more ancient, 
and more free from corruption, than the Hebrew 
Pentateuch. On the other hand, most writers 
who defend the antiquity of the Hebrew letters , 
prefer at the same time the Hebrew to the 
Samaritan text . The principal advocates of the 
Samaritan Pentateuch are J. Morinus, in his 
Exercitationes ecclesiastics (Paris, 1631, 4to) and 
his Opuscula Hebrceo-Samaritana (Paris, 1657, 
12mo): Walton in the eleventh chapter of his 
Prolegomena ; Houbigant, likewise in the Prole¬ 
gomena to his Hebrew Bible; Kennicott, as well 
in his Dissertatio generalise as in his Second 
Dissertation on the State of the printed Hebrew 
Text; and Dr. Henry Owen in his Dissertation 
on the comparative Excellence of the Hebrew and 
Samaritan Pentateuch , which is annexed to his 
above-quoted Prief Account of the Septuagint 
Version. The principal adversaries of the Sama¬ 
ritan Pentateuch are Hottinger, in his Exei'ti- 
tationes Anti-Morinians de Pentateucho Sama - 
7'itano , published at Zurich in 1644, quarto; 
S. Morinus in his above-quoted Exercitationes de 
lingua primsva; F. J. Schwarz, Professor at 
Wittenberg, in his Exercitationes historico-cri- 
ticce in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum. 
Vitembergce , 1756, 4 to; and lastly Professor Tych- 
sen, as well in the above-quoted Tentamen , as in 
his Disputatio philologico-critica, de Pentateucho 


256 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


Ebrceo-Samaritano , db Ebrceo eoque Masoretico, 
descripto exemplari. Butzovii , 1765, 4 to. From 
the very title of this work it appears that Tychsen 
was resolved to degrade the Samaritan Pentateuch 
to the utmost. Hottinger indeed, (to whom 
Walton replied, Prol. XI. 12.) had called the 
Samaritan Pentateuch Apographum vitiosum ex 
Hebrceo-Autographo: but Tychsen goes so far as 
to assert, that it was derived from some Masoretic 
copy of the Hebrew Pentateuch, and not before 
the tenth century. But Tychsen’s arguments were 
fully confuted by Professor Hassencamp of Rinteln, 
in a German work* printed at Minden in 1775, 
octavo.-After all, though the Samaritan Pen¬ 

tateuch has been rescued from the charges of its 
adversaries, it is no necessary consequence, that it 
deserves the preference, which is given to it by 
some of its friends. The Pentateuch in Samaritan 
letters, and the Pentateuch in Hebrew letters, 
emanate from the same source: they are equally 
derived from the autograph of Moses. The dif¬ 
ference in the age between the oldest Hebreiv and 
the oldest Samaritan manuscripts now extant (on 
whatever side the scale may preponderate) can 


* Its German title, which I add for the sake of those who 
understand the language, and who may wish to procure the 
work, is, “ Der entdeckte Wahre Ursprung der alten Bibel- 
Uebersetzungen.” 



LECTURE X. 


257 


bear but a small proportion to the ivhole period, 
which elapsed from the time of Moses : and during 
that period the manuscripts in Samaritan letters 
were subject at least to similar , though not the 
same , alterations, as the manuscripts in Hebrew 
letters. The purity of the text depends not on 
the shape of the character , in which it is ex¬ 
pressed: the former may be preserved, though 
the latter be changed, or the former may be 
changed, though the latter be preserved. Even 
therefore if the letters now used in Samaritan 
manuscripts were precisely the same as those, 
which were used by Moses himself, we could 
neither conclude from this conservation of cha¬ 
racter to a conservation of text, nor from the 
change of character in the Hebrew manuscripts 
to a change in the text. But if we may judge 
from inscriptions and medals, the original let¬ 
ters of the Pentateuch have undergone material 
changes, as well in the Samaritan , as in the 
Hebrew manuscripts. Upon the whole then the 
two Pentateuchs are more nearly equal for the 
purposes of criticism , than the advocates of either 
have commonly supposed: and wherever their 
readings are different, the genuine reading must 
be determined by other arguments than those, 
which are founded on a supposed intrinsic supe¬ 
riority of one to the other. 


R 


258 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


Connected with this subject is the question, 
which has been agitated, whether a copy of the 
Samaritan , or a copy of the Hebrew Pentateuch 
was used by the person or persons, who made 
what is called the Septuagint version of the Pen¬ 
tateuch. The decision of this question is of some 
importance in forming our judgement of readings, 
where the Hebrew and the Samaritan copies are 
at variance. For, if the Septuagint version of the 
Pentateuch was made from the Samaritan text, 
it does nothing more, where it agrees with the 
Samaritan in opposition to the Hebrew, than 
repeat , or echo , the evidence of its original; 
whereas in the places, in which it agrees with the 
Hebrew in opposition to the Samaritan, it affords 
presumptive evidence, that in those places the 
Samaritan text was originally the same as the 
present Hebrew text, and that the error lies in 
the present Samaritan text. Now that the Sep¬ 
tuagint version of the Pentateuch was made from 
a Samaritan manuscript, is an opinion, which 
many writers have entertained. Even Hottinger 
was of that opinion, though he believed that the 
Samaritan itself was derived from the Hebrew. 
But no one has treated this subject so fully as 
Professor Hassencamp in his Dissertatio philo - 
logico-critica cle Pentateucho LXX. Interpretum 
Grceco , non ex Hebrceo , sect Samaritano textu 
converso , printed at Marburg in 1765, 4to. Pro- 


LECTURE X. 


259 


fessor Tychsen of Rostock in the above-quoted 
Tentamen printed in 1772, attempted to support 
the opinion, that it was taken from the Hebrew 
text, and moreover from a manuscript, in which 
the Hebrew text (as in the second column of 
Origen’s Hexapla) was expressed in Greek letters . 
This opinion however was very successfully com¬ 
bated by Hassencamp, in the second part of the 
German work, which has been quoted in a pre¬ 
ceding note. 

After this description of the several subjects, 
which are more or less connected with the criti¬ 
cism of the Hebrew Bible, we cannot better 
conclude than with a caution against both of the 
extremes, into which authors have fallen, with 
respect to the integrity of the Hebrew text. 
What we ought to understand by that expression 
was explained at the beginning of the preceding 
Lecture, where it was observed, that an ancient 
work may be properly said to have preserved its 
integrity, if it has descended to the present age 
in such a state as upon the whole the author gave 
it. In order therefore to defend the integrity of 
the Hebrew text, it is not necessary to maintain 
with Buxtorf, that there are no variations in the 
Hebrew manuscripts, a thing impossible in it¬ 
self, and contradicted by fact; nor is it necessary 
for this purpose to contend, as Professor Tychsen 


260 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


has lately done in his Tentamen , that our Maso- 
retic text is so perfect, as to require not the aid 
of a critical apparatus. The Hebrew Bible, like 
the Greek Testament, has been exposed to the 
variations, which unavoidably result from a multi¬ 
plication of written copies: and even after the 
introduction of the Masora , it was impossible 
wholly to avoid them: nor can it be supposed 
that with all the religious care applied by the 
learned Jews of Tiberias, the text originally 
established by the Masora, was every where free 
from error. Indeed the Jewish writers of the 
greatest distinction have themselves admitted that 
the Masoretic text is not infallible, as De Bossi 
has shewn by some remarkable quotations in the 
Prolegomena {§. 10.) to his Varice Lectiones 
Veteris Testamenti. We must apply therefore 
in doubtful passages the same critical remedies, 
which are applied to all other ancient works. 
But among those critical remedies, we must be 
very cautious of introducing that desperate re¬ 
medy, emendation from conjecture , which should 
never even be attempted , till all other remedies 
have failed. Nor must we be less cautious of 
concluding, that the Hebrew text is at any place 
faulty, because at that place some other text, or 
some ancient version, to which we choose a pi'iori 
to give higher authority, has a different reading. 
Indeed if the Hebrew text were so faulty, as 


LECTURE X. 


261 


Morinus has made it in theory , and Houbigant in 
practice , it would be impossible, in any sense, to 
assert, that the integrity of the Hebrew Bible 
had been preserved. The truth, as usual, lies 
between the two extremes, of Buxtorf and Tych- 
sen on the one hand, and of Morinus and Hou¬ 
bigant on the other. Among all the works on 
this subject, whether English or foreign, I know 
of none, in which this golden mean is so well 
preserved as in the following, of which I will 
subjoin the whole title, as it clearly expresses the 
design of the author. Des Titres Primitifs de 
la Revelation , ou Considerations critiques sur la 
purete et Vintegrite du texte original des livres 
saints de VAncien Testament; dans lesquelles 
on montre les avantages que la Religion et les 
Lettres peuvent retirer d ’ une nouvelle edition 
projettee de ce texte compare avec les manuscripts 
Hehreux , et les anciennes versions Grecques , 
Ratines , et Orientates. Par le R. P. Gabriel 
Fabricy , de Vordre des FF. Precheurs , Doc - 
teur Tkeologien de Casanate , de VAcademie des 
ArcadeRome , 1772, 2 tom. 8 vo. This work 
was published, while the collations were making 
for Dr. Kennicott, to whose then-intended edition 
the title refers, though it is not exactly descrip¬ 
tive of it, as Kennicott’s edition (though Fabricy 
supposed it would) contains no quotations from 
the ancient versions. 


262 


CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. 


Having thus described the first branch of 
Theology, or the Criticism of the Bible, I shall 
in the next Course describe the second branch, 
which relates to the Interpretation of the 
Bible. 


LECTURES 


ON THE 

INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 



































































► 









































INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 


-4.- 

LECTURE T. 

The Criticism of the Bible having been 
•finished in the last Lecture, we now enter on the 
Interpretation of the Bible, which is the next 
branch of Theology according to the system 
explained in the second preliminary Lecture. 

But, as Criticism and Interpretation are not 
unfrequently confounded, it may not be unneces¬ 
sary, before we enter on the latter, to explain 
once more its relation to the former. They are 
so closely connected, that no man can be a good 
Interpreter of the Bible, who is not previously 
acquainted with the Criticism of the Bible. It 
is Criticism, and Criticism alone , which enables 
us to judge of the genuineness, whether of single 
words, or of whole passages, or of whole books. 
And, when we have thus obtained what we have 
reason to believe a genuine text , we have then 
a solid foundation, on which we may build our 
interpretation of the text. But till we know 



266 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

what is the genuine text, we must remain in a 
state of uncertainty, whether our interpretation 
is founded on a rock, or founded only in the sand. 
The process of theological study is undoubtedly 
much shortened, by taking for granted what can 
be known only by long and laborious investiga¬ 
tion. But in a subject so important as that of 
religion, which concerns our future as well as 
present welfare, no labour is too great, no investi¬ 
gation too severe, which may enable us to discern 
the truth unmixed with falsehood. In this place 
I am addressing myself immediately to those, 
who possess the advantages of a learned education, 
and chiefly to those, who receive a learned edu¬ 
cation, for the purpose of becoming qualified to 
preach the Gospel. From such an audience no 
apology can be required, for applying to the 
Bible the principles of reason and learning; for, 
if the Bible could not stand the test of reason 
and learning, it could not be, what it is, a work 
of divine wisdom. The Bible therefore must be 
examined by the same laws of Criticism, which 
are applied to other writings of antiquity: and 
every man, who is set apart for the ministry, 
should consider it as his bounden duty to study 
with especial care that primary branch of Theo¬ 
logy, the Criticism of the Bible. It is a branch, 
which gives nutriment and life to all the other 
branches; and these will become more or less 


LECTURE 1. 


26 7 


vigorous, in proportion as that branch either flou¬ 
rishes or decays. By cultivating the Criticism 
of the Bible, we acquire a habit of calm and im¬ 
partial investigation, which will enable us to 
enter with greater advantage on the other depart¬ 
ments of Theology; we learn to discriminate 
between objects apparently alike, but really dis¬ 
tinct; we learn to sharpen our judgments, and 
correct our imaginations; we learn to think for 
ourselves, without blindly trusting to bare asser¬ 
tion, which may deceive, but can never convince; 
and, while we fortify our faith against the shafts 
of infidelity, we become proof against the seduc¬ 
tions of ignorance and fanaticism. Such are the 
advantages resulting to an Interpreter of the 
Bible from a previous acquaintance with the Cri¬ 
ticism of the Bible; advantages unknown to the 
mere theological empiric, who regards them as 
useless for no other reason, than because he has 
never learnt to comprehend them. 

But however close the connexion may be 
between Criticism and Interpretation, they are 
quite distinct in their respective operations. By 
the one we ascertain what an author has actually 
written: by the other we ascertain what is really 
the author’s meaning. This distinction we must 
keep constantly in view, or we shall be in per¬ 
petual danger of drawing false conclusions. The 


268 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

difficulty indeed, attendant on the one , is closely 
allied with the difficulty attendant on the other; 
each increases with the antiquity of the author. 
The more ancient an author is, and the more 
frequently his works have been transcribed, the 
greater is the probability that no single copy has 
descended to posterity, without numerous devia¬ 
tions from the autograph. And besides the acci¬ 
dental mistakes, which are unavoidable in every 
transcript of an extensive work, the transcribers 
of the Sacred Writings had stronger temptation 
to make alterations by design , than can ever 
take place in the copying of works unconnected 
with religion. So much the more necessary is a 
knowledge of Criticism to the student in Theo¬ 
logy . The same difficulty, which attends the 
Criticism of an ancient work, and which increases 
in proportion to its antiquity, attends also the 
Interpretation of that work, and likewise increases 
with its age. The further we are removed from 
the period, in which an author wrote, the more 
difficult is it to discover, the circumstances in 
which he was placed, the peculiar object which 
he had in view, the situation and sentiments of 
his original readers, and the probable consequent 
tendency of the author’s arguments. If, beside 
the distance of time, we are far removed from him 
in place , if the laws and customs of his country 
had no resemblance to our own , if not only his 


LECTURE I. 


269 


language was different, but his forms of expres¬ 
sion were so little analogous to those which are. in 
use among ourselves , as when literally rendered 
to imply not unfrequently what the author in¬ 
tended not to say, we must he blind, not to 
perceive the difficulties, which attend the inter- 
pretation of that author. We must he blind not 
to perceive, that, in order to become thoroughly 
acquainted with him, something mor'e is wanted, 
than a knowledge of our own customs, and our 
own language. 

Let us apply then these general observations 
to the Bible. When a work is put into our 
hands, composed partly in Hebrew, and partly in 
Hebrew-Greek; when that work contains his¬ 
toric, legislative, poetic, prophetic, and didactic 
materials; when between the earliest and the 
latest of its compositions an interval elapsed of 
more than fifteen hundred years, and an interval 
still greater has elapsed between the latest of its 
compositions and the present age; when they 
were written in a country, and under circum¬ 
stances, very different from our own; when these 
several hinds of composition, breathing more or 
less the oriental spirit of the writers, require an 
attention, as well to particular , as to general 
rules of interpretation; surely no man of com¬ 
mon understanding will assert, that such a work 


270 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

is easy of interpretation. If the meaning of the 
sacred writers is so easy and so obvious, why has 
it been deemed necessary in every age to write 
Commentaries on the Bible? Why has it been 
deemed necessary in every Christian country to 
set apart by public authority a class of men, for 
the purpose of studying and explaining the Scrip¬ 
tures, and to exempt them from secular employ¬ 
ments, that their time might be wholly em¬ 
ployed in their professional duties? It is an 
error too frequently instilled, and too readily re¬ 
ceived, that the qualifications for a good Divine 
are of small extent and of easy attainment. But 
let those, who have been seduced into this fatal 
error, reflect only on the manifold subjects, which 
should engage the attention of the Clergy, and 
they will soon be convinced that the knowledge, 
which they ought to possess, is less circumscribed 
than they imagine. Let them consider that 
Christianity is founded in miracles, which must 
be verified, and in prophecies, which must be 
explained; that the writings, which attest the 
one, and record the other, must be proved authen¬ 
tic and credible; that to establish this authenti¬ 
city and credibility a series of testimony must be 
examined commencing with their first publica¬ 
tion ; that internal evidence must be applied to 
corroborate the external; that this internal evi¬ 
dence can be derived only from an intimate know- 


LECTURE I. 


271 


ledge of the writings themselves; and lastly 
that, to obtain this intimate knowledge, we must 
become acquainted with the languages, in which 
those writings were composed, and with the various 
opinions and institutions, which prevailed at dif¬ 
ferent times, among the people, and in the country, 
where and when they were composed. The dis¬ 
courses of inspired writers, no less than the dis¬ 
courses of common writers, were necessarily adapted 
to the comprehension of those, to whom they were 
immediately addressed; adapted therefore to their 
modes of expression, and their habits of reasoning. 
If we then would understand the inspired writers, 
as they themselves intended to be understood, we 
must likewise be acquainted with those modes of 
expression, and those habits of reasoning. But this 
acquaintance can he formed only by those, who have 
opened to themselves the stores of ancient learning. 

Should argument however fail to convince us, 
that a just interpretation of Scripture requires, 
on the part of the interpreter, an ample share as 
well of erudition as of judgement, we may appeal 
to the expei'ience of almost every age since the 
foundation of Christianity. If the interpretation 
of Scripture were easy and obvious, there would 
be little or no diversity in the explanations, which 
different commentators have given of the same 
passage. But if we compare the Grech with the 


272 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

Latin commentators, we shall frequently find 
such a variety of interpretation, as would appear 
almost impossible to be extracted from the same 
text. If we compare the Jewish commentators, 
either with the Greek, or with the Latin, we 
shall find as great a variety, though a variety of 
a different kind. If we compare our English com¬ 
mentators with any of the preceding, we shall 
find no diminution in the variety of interpreta¬ 
tion. Nor do we find uniformity, either among 
commentators of the same language, or even 
among commentators of the same Church. It is 
true, that in all things relating to doctrine and 
discipline , the Church of Rome preserved during 
several ages an uniformity of interpretation by 
the commentary, which was called the Glossa 
ordinaria . But when the revival of learning had 
opened new sources of intelligence, and the Re¬ 
formation had restored the right of unfettered 
exposition, the Glossa ordinaria was exchanged 
for new systems of interpretation, from Luther 
and Melanchthon, from Calvin and Beza, from 
Grotius, and from Spanheim. 

Here we may observe, that the uniformity of 
interpretation, in respect to doctrine and disci¬ 
pline, preserved by the Glossa ordinaria , has 
been contrasted with that variety of interpreta¬ 
tion, which the religious liberty, procured by our 


LECTURE I. 


273 


Reformers, has introduced among the manifold 
parties, comprehended under the title of Pro¬ 
testant. It has been urged, that this diversity 
of interpretation has occasioned those religious 
divisions , which have gradually arisen since the 
period of the Reformation. It has been urged, 
that both the cause and the effect would have 
been prevented, if the interpretation of Scripture 
had remained subject, as in the Church of Rome, 
to some general and acknowledged rule. Before 
therefore we inquire into the different modes of 
interpretation, we must examine the principle , on 
which biblical interpretation is conducted, by the 
Church of Rome on the one hand, and by the 
Church of England on the other. It was de¬ 
creed in the fourth session of the Council of 
Trent, “ne quis sacram scripturam interpretari 
audeat contra eum sen sum quern tenuit et tenet 
mater ecclesia, cujus est judicare de vero sensu.” 
But if the authority, which directs our interpre¬ 
tation, is itself liable to error, we can never be 
certain that it will exempt us from error: we 
can never conclude that, because the interpreta¬ 
tions, which are founded on that authority, will 
agree with each other, they will therefore agree 
with the truth. Now the Rule, by which the 
Church of Rome decides in the interpretation of 
Scripture, is that which is commonly known by 
the name of Tradition: and, as the meaning of 


2174 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

Scripture is made subject to this Rule, the Rule 
itself is necessarily considered as independent of 
Scripture. It is represented, therefore, as derived 
from the Apostles through a different channel 
than that of their own writings . It is repre¬ 
sented as a doctrina tradita , handed down by 
the Fathers of the Church, who are considered 
as the depositories of this Rule; whence it is 
inferred that the expositions in which they agree, 
are the true expositions of Scripture. Now all 
this is mere matter of opinion , and is calculated 
solely to support the credit of the Church of 
Rome. There is not the slightest historical evi¬ 
dence, that the Apostles transmitted to posterity 
any Rule, but what is recorded in the New Tes¬ 
tament. The Fathers therefore are precisely on 
the same footing with respect to the authority of 
their interpretations, as the commentators of the 
present age. Nor in fact are they uniform in 
their interpretations even in regard to doctrine, 
notwithstanding the agreement alleged by the 
Church of Rome; though some commentators 
may be selected, as well ancient as modern, which 
agree on particular points. The llegula fidei , 
therefore, set up by the Church of Rome, was 
justly discarded by our Reformers, who contended 
for the right of biblical interpretation unfettered 
by the shackles of tradition. But in rejecting 
the Regula fidei of the Romish Church, as an 


LECTURE I. 


275 


authority independent of Scripture, (a rejection 
which constitutes the vital principle of the Refor¬ 
mation) they did not therefore determine that 
no Rule of Faith should be acknowledged by 
Protestants. The Confession of Augsburg, the 
Saxon Confession, the Helvetic Confession, our 
own Articles, the Articles of Dordrecht, are so 
many different formularies containing the Regula 
Jidei of the respective Churches. Indeed they were 
absolutely necessary , to distinguish as well Pro¬ 
testants in general from the Church of Rome, 
as the different parties of Protestants from each 
other. But though we have a Rule of Faith, as 
well as the Church of Rome, and to depart from 
that Rule is to depart from the Established 
Church , there is a fundamental difference in the 
principle from which the respective Rules derive 
their authority. Tradition is supposed independent 
of Scripture; and is applied as a criterion, to de¬ 
termine the meaning of Scripture. But whatever 
be the Rule of Faith adopted by any Protestant 
community, it is so far from being considered as 
independent of Scripture, or as resting on authority 
derived through another channel, that its validity 
is acknowledged on the sole condition of its being 
a fair and legitimate deduction from Scripture. 
This total and absolute dependence of the Regula 
Jidei on the Bible (not the refusal to admit one at 
all) is that which characterizes Protestants. 


276 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

The preceding remarks on the dependence 
or independence of the Regula jidei on the Bible 
have been introduced for the purpose of ascer¬ 
taining the principle, on which Protestants should 
consistently interpret the Bible. When our 
Reformers had discarded Tradition , as a guide 
to the meaning of Scripture, it has been asked; 
By what means did they determine, that their 
own interpretations were right, where the Refor¬ 
mers differed, either from the Church of Rome, 
or from each other? They could not appeal to 
any new Rule of Faith, even if their principles 
would have allowed it; for in the interval, which 
elapsed between the secession from Rome and 
the publication of the Augsburg Confession, no 
new Rule of Faith existed. When Luther there¬ 
fore and Melanchthon interpreted the Bible with 
a view to the formation of that Confession, their 
interpretation was unfettered by pre-conceived 
religious opinions; they interpreted the Bible , 
as they would have interpreted any other work of 
antiquity ; and for that purpose they employed the 
erudition, by which our early Reformers were 
so highly distinguished. When they abandoned 
therefore the guidance of Tradition , they supplied 
its place by Reason and Reaming. But these 
invaluable substitutes, these qualities of sterling 
worth, have been exchanged in modern times for 
baser metal; and the Scriptures have been com- 


LECTURE I. 


m 


mittccl to tlie guidance of disordered imaginations. 
Nay, our Reformers themselves have been pressed 
into the service of ignorance and fanaticism; and 
expressions which they applied to one purpose 
have been grossly misapplied to another. Of 
these expressions therefore it is necessary to give 
an explanation, 

One of these expressions is, “ that the Bible 
is its own interpreter.” To understand this expres¬ 
sion, as it was meant by our Reformers, we must 
consider, that it was used in opposition to the 
Church of Rome. It was used solely with reference 
to Tradition; it was intended solely to deny, that 
Tradition was the interpreter of the Bible: it 
was designed to rescue the interpretation of the 
Bible from an authoritative rule, which would 
have counteracted the expositions, on which was 
founded the Confession of Augsburg. But our 
Reformers did not assert, that the Bible was so 
far its own Interpreter, as to require no explana¬ 
tion whatever . If this had been their meaning, 
we might ask; For what reason did both Luther 
and Calvin think it necessary to write Commen¬ 
taries on the Bible ? To what purpose did Luther 
enjoin the practice, still observed by his followers, 
of explaining to the people from t the pulpit the 
Gospel, which had been read at the altar? In fact 
learning, especially grammatical learning, was the 


278 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

pillar , by which the edifice of the Reformation 
was supported: and Melanchthon, who composed 
the Confession of Augsburg, appealed uniformly 
to the maxim, Scripturam non posse intelligi 
theologice, nisi antea intellecta sit grammatice. 
But the meaning of our Reformers, in respect to 
the Bible being its own interpreter, has been 
strangely perverted in modern times; and a mere 
relative expression has been so construed, as if 
they had applied it in a positive and absolute sense. 
An expression, meant only to exclude Tradition , 
has been made a pretence for ,the exclusion of 
Theological Learning; and the maxim, that the 
Bible is its own interpreter, has been carried so 
far in the present, as well as in a former age, that 
men, who can scarcely read the Bible, have dreamt 
that they are able to expouyid it. Nor is their 
inconsistency less remarkable, than their presump¬ 
tion. For if the Bible is absolutely its own inter¬ 
preter, there can be no necessity for their inter¬ 
pretations : there can be no necessity for any class 
of men employed to study and explain it. 
Whether we are acquainted with Hebrew and 
Greek, or know only our mother tongue; whether 
we are provided with a store of ancient learning, 
or our philosophy is confined to the awl and the 
anvil, we are all equally qualified to understand 
the Bible. Hence the early Reformers, who were 
among the most distinguished scholars of their 


LECTURE I. 


279 


age, have been converted into patrons of igno¬ 
rance: and a Reformation, which was produced 
by erudition, has been represented as indebted 
for its origin to the total absence of human 
learning. 

Another expression used by our Reformers, 
namely, “ the perspicuity of the Sacred Writings,” 
has been no less abused than the similar expression 
already noted. When they argued for the per¬ 
spicuity of the Bible, they intended not to argue 
against the application of Learning , but against 
the application of Tradition to the exposition of 
Scripture. The Church of Rome, on the ground, 
and indeed just ground, that the Bible required 
explanation , contended, that this explanation 
must he sought in Tradition. No! said our Re¬ 
formers ; We need not the aid of your Tradition; 
to us the Bible is sufficiently perspicuous with¬ 
out it. Here then they made their stand; here 
it was, that they unfurled the banner of the 
Reformation. But in rejecting Tradition as 
necessary to make the Bible perspicuous, they 
never meant to declare, that the Bible was alike 
perspicuous, to the learned and the unlearned. 
If they had, they would never have supplied 
the unlearned with explanations of it. But the 
‘perspicuity of the Bible,’ is again an expression, 
which has been so construed in modern times, 


280 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

as if the genuine principle of Protestantism 
required us to reject what the authors of Pro¬ 
testantism have provided . In fact the learned, 
as well as the unlearned, are in need of con¬ 
tinual help, to understand the Bible; men already 
provided with a store of biblical erudition are 
perpetually feeling the necessity of further infor¬ 
mation ; the more we advance, the more sensible 
do we become of what we ivant to know ; and 
only superficial readers will imagine that a know¬ 
ledge of the Bible is a matter of easy attainment. 
Fortunately for mankind, the passages of Scripture, 
which we are most concerned to understand, are 
those, which are understood with the greatest 
ease. Neither a critical nor a philological ap¬ 
paratus is necessary to discover the will of God 
in what relates to our own conduct. However 
difficult it may be, to penetrate into the coun¬ 
cils of the Deity, and to fathom the depth of 
his decrees , the laws, which he has prescribed 
for the government of our own actions, and in 
which a misunderstanding might be fatal, are 
intelligible to the meanest capacity. But the 
diversity , which prevails in many articles of 
faith among different Christian communities, 
shews the difficulty of rightly understanding the 
passages of Scripture, on which the Articles, 
wherein we differ, are founded. And if we 
further consider the manifold attainments, which 


LECTURE I. 


281 


are necessary to understand the original Scrip¬ 
tures in all their various relations we shall not 
conclude, that they are alike perspicuous to the 
learned and the unlearned. Augustine, who was 
not in other respects an advocate for deep 
erudition, though few men have surpassed him 
in acuteness of reasoning, has acknowledged, in 
a Letter to Volusian, the greatness of the 
difficulties which attend the interpretation of 
Scripture. “ Non quod ad ea, quae necessaria 
sunt saluti , tanta perveniatur difficultate; sed, 
cum quisque ibi fidem tenuerit, sine qua pie 
recteque non vivitur , tarn multa, tamque multipli- 
cibus mysteriorum umbraculis opacata, intelligenda 
proficientibus restant, tantaque non solum in 
verbis , quibus ista dicta sunt, sed etiam in rebus 
quae intelligendae sunt, latet altitudo sapientiae, 
ut annosissimis, acutissimis, flagrantissimis cupi- 
ditate discendi hoc contingat, quod eadem 
Scriptura quodam loco habet, “ Cum consumma- 
verit homo, tunc incipit.” In the same epistle 

he calls the Scripture omnibus accessibilis- 

paucissimis penetrabilis. Of the easy and obvious 
passages, such as relate to our own practice, 
he says. Sine fuco ad cor loquitur indoctorum 
atque doctorum. But of those, which require 
the aid of erudition, he says, Non audeat acce- 
dere mens tardiuscula et inerudita, tanquam 
pauper ad divitem. 



282 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

Lastly, let us guard against the prevalent 
abuse of-another position, which was maintained 
by our Reformers, and likewise in reference to 
Tradition. When Tradition was discarded as 
a Rule of Faith independent of the Bible, our 
Reformers of course maintained, that the Bible 
alone contained all things, which were necessary 
for salvation. To the Bible alone , to the Bible 
without Tradition , did they appeal therefore in 
opposition to the Church of Rome: and, that 
all men might be enabled to judge, whether 
they rightly appealed, they wisely insisted, that 
the privilege of reading the Bible should be 
common to all men. But the Commentaries, 
which they wrote, beside the Confessions of 
Faith, which they composed, may convince us, 
that when they put the Bible into the hands of 
the people, they thought it necessary to add an 
explanation of it. Our Reformers therefore 
carried their opposition to the Church of Rome 
beyond the mere act of giving a Bible without 
note or comment. The sufficiency of the Holy 
Scriptures without the aid of Tradition , did 
not imply in their opinion the inutility of all 
explanation. Nor, because the Bible contains all 
things, which are necessary for salvation, did our 
Reformers conclude, that in giving the Bible 
alone , they did all things, which were wanted 
on their parts, for religious instruction. When 


LECTURE I. 


283 


Tradition was discarded, the Bible only became 
the religion of the Protestant; the Bible only 
was recognized as the fountain of religious truth. 
But so apprehensive were the early Reformers , « 
that the streams , which might be drawn from 
it, would lose the purity of their source, and 
become tainted in their progress, unless care were 
taken to lead them into proper channels, that 
these Reformers employed the most strenuous 
exertions, to prevent their flowing, either to 
Popery again, or in any other direction, where 
falsehood might be mingled with the truth. It 
was chiefly for this purpose, that they composed 
both Expositions of Scripture, and those Con¬ 
fessions of Faith, to which their followers assented 
on the ground, that our Reformers had rightly 
explained the Scripture. On this ground we as¬ 
sent in particular to our own Liturgy and Articles: 
and if we neglect them, we neglect the Faith, to 
which we profess ourselves attached. On the other 
hand, as our Liturgy and Articles are avowedly 
founded on the Bible, it is the special duty of 
those, who are set apart for the ministry, to 
compare them with the Bible, and see that 
their pretensions are well founded. But then our 
interpretation of the Bible must be conducted 
independently of that, of which the truth is to be 
ascertained by it. Our interpretation of the Bible 
therefore must not be determined by religious 
system : and we must follow the example of our 


284 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

Reformers, who supplied the place of Tradition 
by Reason and Learning. Let us beware then, 
as Protestants , of undertaking that important 
office, without due preparation. Would any man 
undertake to expound the law of the land, with¬ 
out a due preparation in the study of the law? 
Or, if any one thus unprepared should venture 
on the task, would hearers or readers be found 
sufficiently credulous to believe in his expositions? 
And shall the law of God be treated with greater 
levity, than the law of man ? 

Here then, I trust, the arguments for theo¬ 
logical learning may be concluded. It shall be 
the business therefore of the next, and of the 
following Lectures, to give directions for the 
application of it. And let us all implore the 
blessing of Almighty God, while we are consci¬ 
entiously striving to discover the truth. If we 
employ the means, which God has provided us 
for the understanding of the Scriptures, we may 
hope, that the grace of God will be granted 
to our honest endeavours. But, if we 7ieglect 
those means, let us not deceive ourselves by the 
vain expectation, that the Almighty will inter¬ 
pose by supernatural means, to supply the de¬ 
fects, which we ourselves occasion, when we dis¬ 
regard the natural means, which lie has already 
furnished for that purpose. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE, 


-- 

LECTURE II, 

I he first office of an interpreter is the inves¬ 
tigation of single words: for he must understand 
the elements , of which a sentence is composed, 
before he can judge of their combination . Now 
in all languages words are only signs. When 
they are spoken, they are signs to the hearer of 
what was thought by the speaker: when they 
are written, they are signs to the reader of what 
was thought by the writer . The interpretation 
therefore of any word, whether written by an 
ancient or by a modern author, must depend on 
the following question; What notion did the 
author himself affix to that word, when he com¬ 
mitted it to writing? Consequently, all our in¬ 
quiries into the meaning of a word in any parti¬ 
cular passage, inquiries which sometimes diverge 
in numerous directions, must be all brought at 
last to concentre in that single point, the notion 
affixed to it in that passage by the author . 



286 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

The discovery of this notion will be attended 
with greater or less difficulty, according to the 
relative situation of the reader to the author. 
If the latter uses the same language, which is 
spoken by the former, and writes on a familiar 
subject, he will be readily understood, because he 
employs expressions, of which the meaning is 
determined by usage equally known to both 
parties. In such cases, the reader, unless he has 
a previous desire of perverting the author’s mean¬ 
ing, will commonly understand the words, as they 
were intended to be understood : they will really 
be signs to the reader, of what was thought by 
the writer. If, instead of writing on familiar 
subjects, he writes on matters of science , the diffi¬ 
culty of interpretation will be increased; but 
this additional difficulty will not be of that de¬ 
scription, which creates ambiguity . The words 
will still perform their functions with exactness: 
for the definitions, which are used in science, pre¬ 
vent all misunderstanding. The Elements of 
Euclid will be understood in every age and na¬ 
tion, precisely in the same sense, as they were 
understood by the author. In works composed 
on morality and religion , where mixed modes, 
which are not easily defined, are the objects of 
contemplation, it is always more difficult to ascer¬ 
tain an author’s meaning, however attentive he 
himself may have been to the choice of his 


LECTURE II. 


287 


expressions. But in works of fancy and imagi¬ 
nation, where, even in the author’s own mind, 

' precision and discrimination are frequently over¬ 
looked in the combinations of poetic imagery, 
occasional ambiguity will unavoidably take place 
in the interpretation of his words. 

If the work, which we undertake to interpret, 
is written in a foreign language, we shall not 
only have to encounter the preceding difficulties, 
according to their several gradations, hut the ad¬ 
ditional difficulty of understanding the language 
itself. If indeed it be a modern language, and, 
beside the assistance derived from grammars and 
dictionaries, the reader has the advantage of 
conversing with those, whose language it is, the 
words of that language may gradually become to 
him as familiar signs, as the words of his own 
language. But if the work, which we undertake 
to interpret, is written in a dead language, an 
accumulation of difficulty will take place, accord¬ 
ing to the extent or the scantiness of the means, 
which we possess, of discovering the meaning of 
the words, which are extant in that language. 
This is a kind of difficulty, entirely distinct from 
that, which attends what is commonly called the 
learning of a dead language. A dead language, 
which can be acquired only by grammar and 
lexicon, is more or less easily learnt , according 


888 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

to the paucity or abundance of its ivords , the 
simplicity or variety of its inflexions , and the 
clearness or intricacy of its construction. Hence 
the Hebrew language is more easily learnt , than 
the Greek: yet the examples, in which it is 
difficult to ascertain with precision the meaning 
of words, are more frequent in the former, than 
in the latter. A passage may be easily construed , 
yet not easily understood. When the structure 
of a sentence is involved in no obscurity, we can 
easily put together, by the help of a Lexicon, 
a set of words in one language corresponding to a 
set of words in another. But the correspondence 
will not necessarily be such, that the meaning 
expressed by the translator , shall be the mean¬ 
ing intended by the author. The meaning of 
words is purely conventioiial; their connexion 
with the notions, which they convey, is founded 
in the practice or the usage of those, who speak 
the language, to which the words belong. In a 
living language this usage is known from con - 
versation. But in a dead language it can be 
discovered only by reading: and therefore the 
fewer hooks we have in that language, the more 
circumscribed will be our means of discovering 
what was the usage of it, when it was spoken. 
Now the Old Testament is the only work which 
remains, in the ancient Hebrew: nor have we 
any thing like a Lexicon or Glossary composed, 


LECTURE II. 


289 


while it was a living language. Indeed it ceased 
to be a living language so long ago as the Baby¬ 
lonish Captivity; for Jerusalem was re-built by 
Jews, who were born in Chaldea, and who re¬ 
turned to the country of their ancestors with the 
language of their conquerors. 

It is a matter therefore of great importance to 
the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible , to know 
the sources , from which we derive our knowledge 
of the Hebrew language. It is true, that we 
have the advantage of an English translation, as 
well in the Old Testament, as in the New: but 
no man would wholly confide in a modern trans¬ 
lation, who had the means of understanding the 
original. At any rate, it is of consequence to 
know how far our translators themselves were in 
possession of those means, because this knowledge 
must determine the degree of confidence to be 
placed in them. Let us consider therefore in the 
first instance what were the primary sources, from 
which the knowledge of Hebrew was drawn; and 
in the next place let us inquire into those, which 
had the chief influence on our modern translations. 

As Chaldee was the language spoken by the 
Jews of Jerusalem after the Babylonish Capti¬ 
vity, they gradually translated the Hebrew Scrip¬ 
tures, or at least the greatest part of them, into 
T 


290 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

that language. While Chaldee was spoken in 
the southern part of Palestine, Syriac was the 
language of Galilee. Now we have a Syriac 
translation of the whole Hebrew Bible, as well 
as of the Greek Testament. Since then we have 
Chaldee and Syriac translations from the Hebrew, 
they are sources, from which we derive a know¬ 
ledge of the Hebrew. It is true that Chaldee 
and Syriac have themselves long ceased to be 
spoken, if we except perhaps some villages of 
Palestine, where it is said, that a remnant of 
them is still preserved. But we have the means 
of ascertaining the sense of Syriac words from 
the writings of the Syrian Fathers, especially as 
some of them were translated into Greek, and 
the knowledge of Chaldee was long preserved 
among the Jews, who retained it as a learned 
language many ages after their final dispersion. 
Chaldee and Syriac assist also each other : for in 
fact they are not so much different languages, 
as different dialects of the same language. The 
chief difference between them consists in the 
vowel points, or the mode of 'pronunciation. 
And though the forms of the letters are very 
unlike, the correspondence between the languages 
(or rather dialects) themselves is so close, that 
if Chaldee be written with Syriac letters without 
points, it becomes Syriac, with the exception of a 
single inflexion in the formation of the verbs. 


LECTURE II. 


291 


Another oriental source, from which we derive 
a knowledge of Hebrew words, is the Arabic. The 
most ancient among the Arabic versions of the 
Hebrew Bible was made indeed above a thousand 
years after Hebrew had ceased to be spoken. But, 
on the other hand, we have the means of deter¬ 
mining with the greatest exactness the sense of 
Arabic words, because Arabic is still a living lan¬ 
guage, and is spoken over a greater extent of 
country, than almost any other language. It is at 
the same time a kind of classical language: it has 
authors on almost every subject; and has under¬ 
gone the investigation of native grammarians and 
lexicographers. Its importance therefore to the 
interpretation of Hebrew is apparent. It serves 
indeed as a key to that language ; for it is not only 
allied to the Hebrew, but is at the same time so 
copious, as to contain the roots of almost all the 
words in the Hebrew Bible. 

But of all the ancient versions of the Hebrew 
Bible, there is none so important, both to the 
critic, and to the interpreter, as the Greek version, 
which is known by the name of the Septuagint. 
Nor is the advantage, derived from the Septuagint, 
confined to the Hebi'ew. It is a source of inter¬ 
pretation also to the Greek Testament : and so 
valuable a source, that none other can be compared 
with it. The Septuagint version was made in 


292 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

Egypt, under the government of the Ptolemies, 
for the use of the Jews then settled in that 
country, who were as much in need of a Greek 
version, as the Jews of Palestine were then in 
need of a Chaldee version. The Egyptian Jews, 
to whom Greek was become their vernacular 
language, were of course desirous of possessing 
in Greek a faithful representation of the Hebrew 
Scriptures. But then the structure of the two 
languages was so widely different, that the trans¬ 
lators, adhering to the original, more closely 
than perhaps necessity required, retained Hebrew 
forms and modes of expression, while the words, 
which they were writing, were Greek. The 
language therefore of the Septuagint is a kind 
of Hebrew-G reek, which a native of Athens 
might sometimes have found difficult to under¬ 
stand. But, as this version became the Bible 
of all the Jews, who were dispersed throughout 
the countries, where Greek was spoken, it became 
the standard of their Greek language. St. Paul 
himself, who was born in Tarsus, and was accus¬ 
tomed from his childhood to hear the Septuagint 
read in the synagogue of that city, adopted the 
Hebrew idioms of the Greek version. And when 
he was removed to Jerusalem, and placed under 
the guidance of Gamaliel, the Hebrew tincture of 
St. Paul’s Greek could have suffered no diminution. 
The other Apostles were all natives of Palestine; 


LECTURE II. 


293 


as was also the Evangelist St. Mark, and probably 
the Evangelist St. Luke. Their language therefore 
was Syriac or Chaldee, of which the turns of ex¬ 
pression had a close correspondence with those of 
the ancient Hebrew. Consequently, when they 
wrote in Greeh, their language could not fail to 
resemble the language, which had been used by 
the Greek translators. And, as every Jew, who 
read Greek at all, (which they who wrote in it 
must have done) would read the Greek Bible, the 
style of the Septuagint again operated in forming 
the style of the Greek Testament. Both the 
Hebrew Bible therefore and the Greek Testament 
are so closely connected with the Septuagint, as 
well in their language as in their matter, that the 
Septuagint is a source of interpretation, alike 
important to the one and to the other. 

We now come to the consideration of that 
source, from which we have most copiously drawn, 
and which has had greater influence on our modern 
translations, than is commonly supposed. This 
source is the Latin Vulgate. It has been applied 
to the interpretation, as well of the New, as of the 
Old Testament. But it is of more especial use in 
the latter, because our sources of intelligence in 
respect to Hebrew words, are more circumscribed 
then in respect to Greek. Its intrinsic value also 
in the Old Testament is greater than in the New. 


294} INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

The Latin Vulgate in the New Testament was 
only corrected by Jerom; but in the Old Testa¬ 
ment it is a translation made by Jerom himself, 
and made immediately from the Hebrew. Now 
Jerom was by far the most learned among all the 
Fathers of the Latin Church: and in order to 
make his translation of the Hebrew Bible as 
correct as possible, he passed several years in 
Palestine, where he was assisted by learned Jews, 
belonging to the celebrated college of Tiberias. 
Indeed the benefit to be derived from the Latin 
Vulgate, was acknowledged by our early Refor¬ 
mers, in the extensive use which they made of 
it themselves . Wickliffe’s English translation was 
made entirely from the Vulgate: and Luther 
himself, when he made his German translation, 
translated indeed from the Hebrew and the 
Greek, but with the assistance of the Latin 
Vulgate. This assistance is visible throughout; 
and passages have been discovered in Luther’s 
German translation, which agree with the Latin, 
even where the Latin differs from the Hebrew. 

But the use of the Latin Vulgate, in trans¬ 
lating from the Hebrew, was at that period not 
merely matter of convenience. It was matter also 
of necessity . Without the Vulgate, Luther would 
not have possessed the means of translating from 
the Hebrew. The knowledge of Hebrew had for 


LECTURE II. 


295 


ages preceding the period of the Reformation, 
been confined to the learned among the Jews; 
and when Luther undertook the task of translating 
from the original Scriptures, this knowledge had 
begun only to dawn among Christians. The com¬ 
prehensive grammars and lexicons, to which we 
have now access, are sources of intelligence, which 
were not open to our early Reformers. The elder 
Buxtorf, one of the fathers of Hebrew learning 
among Christians, was not born till after Luther’s 
death; and Luther’s only help in the form of 
a Hebrew Lexicon, was that of Reuchlin, ex^ 
tracted from the meagre glossaries of the Rabbins. 
Under such circumstances a translation from the 
Hebrew, without the intervention of the Latin, 
would have been wholly impracticable. 

Here the subject requires a few observations 
on our own authorised version. It was published 
by royal authority in the reign of James the 
First, having been then compiled out of various 
English Bibles which had been printed since the 
time of the Reformation. To judge therefore of 
our authorised version we should have some know¬ 
ledge of those previous English Bibles. The first 
of them was a translation made abroad, partly by 
Tyndal, and partly by Rogers, but chiefly by the 
former. It was undertaken soon after the Refor¬ 
mation commenced in Germany , and therefore 


296 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

several years before the Reformation was intro¬ 
duced into England. What knowledge Tyndal 
had of Hebrew is unknown; but he of course 
understood the Latin Vulgate; and he was 
likewise acquainted with German. Indeed he 
passed some time with Luther at Wittenberg; 
and the books which Tyndal selected for trans¬ 
lation into English were always those, which 
Luther had already translated into German. 
Now Luther did not translate according to the 
order, in which the several books follow each 
other in the Bible: he translated in an order of 
his own , and the same order was observed also 
by Tyndal, who translated after Luther. We 
may conclude therefore that Tyndal's translation 
was taken at least in part from Luther’s I and 
this conclusion is further confirmed by the Ger¬ 
manisms , which it contains, some of which are 
still preserved in our authorised version. Further, 
when Rogers had completed what Tyndal left 
unfinished, he added notes and prefaces from 
Luther. The translation of the whole Bible, thus 
made by Tyndal and Rogers, was published at 
Hamburg under the feigned name of Matthewe: 
and hence it has been called Matthewe’s Bible. 
Other English editions were Coverdale’s Bible* 
Cranmer’s Bible (called also the Great Bible, and 
sometimes by the names of the printers Grafton 
and Whitchurch,) the Geneva Bible, and Parker’s 


LECTURE II. 


297 


or the Bishops’ Bible which last was published 
in 1568, and from that time was used in our 
Churches till the introduction of our present 
Bible. Now the Bishops’ Bible, as appears 
from Archbishop Parker’s instructions, was only 
a revision of Cranmer’s Bible: and Cranmer’s 
Bible was only a correction of Matthewe’s Bible, 
that is, of the translation made by Tyndal and 
Rogers. We see therefore the genealogy of the 
Bishops ’ Bible; and the Bishops’ Bible was 
made the basis of the King’s Bible, or our present 
authorised version. For the first rule, given by 
James the First to the compilers of it, was this, 
“ The ordinary Bible, read in the Church, com¬ 
monly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, 
and as little altered, as the original would permit.” 
But whenever Tyndal’s, or Matthewe’s Bible, or 
Coverdale’s, or Whitchurch’s or the Geneva Bible 
came nearer to the original (that is to the 
editions of the Hebrew Bible and Greek Testa¬ 
ment then in use) the text of these other 
English Bibles was ordered to be adopted. 
Now as this collation was made by some of the 
most distinguished scholars in the age of James 
the First, it is probable, that our authorised 
version is as faithful a representation of the 
original Scriptures as could have been formed 
at that period. But when we consider the 
immense accession which has been since made. 


298 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

both to our critical and to our philological ap¬ 
paratus ; when we consider, that the whole mass 
of literature, commencing with the London Poly¬ 
glot and continued to Griesbach’s Greek Testa¬ 
ment, was collected subsequently to that period; 
when we consider that the most important 
sources of intelligence for the interpretation of 
the original Scriptures were likewise opened after 
that period, we cannot possibly pretend that our 
authorised version does not require amendment . 
On this subject we need only refer to the work of 
Archbishop Newcome, entitled, “ An Historical 
“ View of the English Biblical Translations; the 
“ expediency of revising by authority our present 
“ English Translation; and the means of execut- 
“ ing such a revision.” Indeed Dr. Macknight, 
in the second section of his general Preface, goes 
so far as to say of our authorised version, “ It is 
“ by no means such a just representation of the 
“ inspired originals, as merits to be implicity 
“ relied on, for determining the controverted 
“ articles of the Christian faith, and for quieting 
“ the dissensions, which have rent the Church.” 

In excuse however for neglecting the original 
languages, and trusting to a modern translation*, 
it has been lately urged, that a man may spend 


See the Appendix at the end of the volume. 



LECTURE II. 


299 


his life in the study of Hebrew and Greek, and 
yet not become master of the originals, while 
the mere English scholar, who is versed in the 
phraseology of our authorised version, may be 
said to have made no inconsiderable progress in 
divinity. In answer to this excuse we may pro¬ 
pose the following questions: If, w T ith our pre¬ 
sent critical and philological apparatus, we are 
unable to discover the meaning of the originals, 
how could that meaning have been discovered 
by our early translators ? How can we make 
a considerable progress in the knowledge of the 
Scriptures by reading only a translation, if the 
understanding of the originals is impeded by 
difficulties, which the very authors of that trans¬ 
lation must have found much harder to sur¬ 
mount ? In the study of the Bible therefore, 
let those, who are set apart for the Christian 
ministry, consider well what is required from a 
good interpreter. Would it not be thought ab¬ 
surd, if a man ignorant of Greek undertook to 
write a Commentary on Homer, or a man igno¬ 
rant of Latin to write a Commentary on Virgil? 
And is it not equally absurd, to comment on the 
New Testament without a knowledge of Greek, 
or on the Old Testament without a knowledge of 
Hebrew ? A knowledge of Greek is, in a greater 
or less degree, attained by all, who have had the 
benefit of a learned education. But a knowledge 


300 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

of Hebrew, which is equally required from the 
foreign Protestant Clergy, is considered as less 
necessary in this country : and indeed it is so far 
less necessary, as a perfect understanding of the 
Old Testament is less necessary to a Christian , 
than a perfect understanding of the New. Yet 
we should surely endeavour to obtain at least so 
much knowledge of it, as may enable us to com¬ 
pare with the original our English translation, 
and see that the text itself is accurate—before we 
attempt an interpretation of that text. 

A further excuse for disregarding the originals 
and confiding in a modern translation, has been 
founded in an argument, which to a certain extent 
is indisputably true. It has been urged, that 
even if we do learn the original languages, we 
must still confide in a translator; and, that 
whether we look into a Lexicon, which gives us 
the meaning of single words, or into a Transla¬ 
tion, which gives us the meaning of them all 
together , we are dependent on the Lexicographer 
in the one case, as on the Translator in the 
other. But there is a material difference, both 
in the kind , and in the extent of the confidence, 
which we thus repose. If we depend on a con¬ 
tinued translation, we place a twofold confidence 
in the translator; a confidence in his knowledge 
of each single word, and a confidence in his right 


LECTURE II. 


301 


construction of them. But our confidence in the 
Lexicographer is only of the former description : 
we learn to construe for ourselves, and thus are 
enabled to judge, whether others have construed 
rightly. We are enabled also to judge whether 
the translator has added or omitted, which we 
can never know without examining the original. 
Nor is the confidence, which we place in a Lexi¬ 
cographer even for single words, by any means 
so implicit, as when we trust to a continued 
translation. In the latter case, we must wholly 
rely, both on the judgement and on the fidelity of 
the translator, being destitute of that knowledge, 
without which we can form no estimate what¬ 
ever. But the case is widely different, when we 
consult a Lexicon. It is not in the power of 
a Lexicographer to impose on us, as a common 
translator can. In a Lexicon (at least if it is of 
any value) we frequently find the same word 
quoted in various passages, which assist us in 
determining its meaning; if it is a derivative, 
we become acquainted with the primitive, with 
which its meaning must have some connexion ; 
and if it has various senses, (which we should 
never know from a continued translation) we may 
judge from the context and other circumstances, 
which of those various senses is best adapted to 
any particular passage. If we extend our know¬ 
ledge to the oriental languages allied to the 


302 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

Hebrew, and apply also the Septuagint version, 
the dependence on our Lexicon will be further 
diminished. We ourselves shall obtain posses¬ 
sion of the sources , from which the Lexicogra¬ 
pher himself must have drawn his materials, and 
thence we shall be enabled to judge, whether he 
has properly applied them. 

Lastly, let us consider the additional obliga¬ 
tion of studying the original Scriptures, which 
lies especially on those, who pretend to the title 
of Protestant. To repose implicit confidence in 
a translation , is characteristic of the Church of 
Rome. Let the Church of Rome decree of her 
authorised version, Ut nemo illam rejicere quo- 
vis prcetextu audeat vel prcesumat. But let no 
Protestant apply these words of the Council of 
Trent to his own authorised version, whatever 
predilection he may have for it himself. It is 
the privilege of Protestants to appeal to the 
inspired originals. We do not believe, that our 
translators were inspired, though the Jews be¬ 
lieved it of their Septuagint translators. The 
early Reformers , especially Luther and Melanch- 
tlion, thought it one of the most important ad¬ 
vantages obtained by the Reformation, that the 
learned were no longer forced to walk in the 
trammels of an authorised version, but were 
at liberty to open the originals. Nor have the 


LECTURE II. 


303 


foreign Protestant Clergy, from the period of the 
Reformation to the present age, appealed, either 
in Academic disputations, or in writings designed 
for the learned, to any other scriptural autho¬ 
rity, than that of the Hebrew and the Greek . 
For those indeed, who were unable to under¬ 
stand the originals, they provided translations 
conducted to the best of their abilities. And 
since it is infinitely better to read the Scriptures 
in a translation , than not to read them at all, 
the legislature of different Protestant countries 
has wisely provided for the reading of them in 
Churches, according to those translations, which 
were most approved. But the high and decisive 
authority, belonging to the inspired originals, 
was never supposed by any Protestant , at least 
not by any real Protestant, to attach to a mere 
translation ; though the Church of Rome requires 
such authority for her own authorised version. 
When a Protestant government has selected a 
particular translation, and appointed it to be read 
in Churches, this selection and appointment has 
implied only, that such translation was the best 
which could then be obtained. But it did not 
imply perfection , or that no future amendment 
could be required. Indeed we know, that the 
English version, which had been authorised by 
Queen Elizabeth, was exchanged for another 
version, authorised by James the First. We 


304 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

have therefore a precedent in our own Church, 
for following the advice of Archbishop Newcome, 
and again revising by authority our English ver¬ 
sion. But whether we revise it or not, there is 
one inference, which must be drawn from the 
preceding remarks, namely, that we cannot be 
qualified for the Interpretation of the Bible, till 
we understand the languages of the Bible. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 


-- 

LECTURE III. 

The sources of biblical interpretation hav¬ 
ing been explained in the preceding Lecture, let 
us now consider what rules must be observed in 
the investigation of words, in order to make 
them perform the office, for which they were 
intended, and become signs to the hearer or 
reader of what was thought by the speaker or 
writer. 

Whether we speak, or whether we write, it 
is in either case our object to be understood. 
Every Author therefore must be supposed to 
employ such words, for the conveyance of his 
thoughts, as he believes will excite in his readers 
the same thoughts. Otherwise, he defeats his 
own object. His words will be fallacious signs; 
they will be signs of one thing to the writer, of 
another thing to the reader; and whether they 
convey a true, or convey a false proposition, they 
will not convey, what the reader wants to know, 
the proposition of the author. Hence also he 
U 



306 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

must be supposed to use his words in the same 
sense , in which they are commonly used by the 
persons, who speak the language, in which he 
writes. For, if he uses them in any other sense, 
they will again be signs of one thing to the writer, 
of another to the reader. 

To interpret therefore a word in any language, 
(whoever be the author that used it) we must ask 
in the first instance ; What notion is (or was) 
affixed to that word, by the persons in general , 
who speak (or spake) the language ? And the 
answer to this question will constitute our first 
rule of interpretation. Now the question, when 
applied to a living language, is easily answered, 
because the usage of a living language is known 
from conversation. But when it is applied to a 
dead language, of which the usage can be learnt 
only from books, the answer may involve very 
extensive inquiries. If, for instance, the question 
be applied to a word in the Hebrew Bible, the 
answer will involve the use of those sources of 
intelligence, which were explained in the last 
Lecture. In like manner, if it be applied to any 
word in the Greek Testament , the answer will 
involve inquiries into the usage of words, both 
among the Greeks in general, and among those 
in particular, who used the peculiar dialect of 
Hebrew- Greek. 


LECTURE III. 


307 


But whatever be the sources, from which we 
derive our knowledge of words, whatever be our 
means of answering the question above-proposed, 
that answer will in general determine our inter¬ 
pretation of words, as it determines in general an 
author’s application of them. The rules them¬ 
selves therefore, which we are nozv considering, 
may be explained, without reference to any par¬ 
ticular language. But, on the other hand, we 
must not forget, that they apply only to the words 
of an original. For when we interpret a trans¬ 
lation, the words, which we investigate, are signs 
to the reader of what was thought by the trans¬ 
lator. They may, or they may not , be signs of 
what was thought by the author. 

It has been already observed, that authors 
must in general use their words in the sense, in 
which they are generally understood: and that 
hence is derived our first rule of interpretation » 
But how, it may be asked, is the rule to be 
applied, if a word has various senses ? Is not such 
a word an ambiguous sign ? And must not the 
application of the rule be attended in this case 
with uncertainty? Now if a word has various 
senses, it will undoubtedly be a sign of one thing 
in one place, of another thing in another place. 
But it is no necessary consequence, that the word 
is an ambiguous sign. Its senses, however dif- 



308 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

ferent, may be distinctly marked by the relation 
of that word to other words, with which it is 
connected in a sentence. And as in cases w r here 
a word has only one sense, that sense is deter¬ 
mined by usage, in like manner, where a word 
has various senses, each single sense will be 
determined by usage. But then the question 
above-proposed must be restricted to the par¬ 
ticular case. And instead of asking indefinitely , 
What notion was affixed to the word by the 
persons in general, who spake the language, we 
must ask; What notion did they affix to it, in 
that particular connexion ? 

Should a doubt however remain, where a word 
has various senses, that doubt may be frequently 
removed by the application of another rule, which 
is likewise founded on the principle, that words 
are signs to the reader of what was thought by the 
writer. As the general meaning of words depends 
on general usage, so their particular application 
may depend on the particular situation of the per¬ 
sons, to whom they were immediately addressed. 
We may lay it down therefore as a second rule of 
interpretation, that the meaning of a word, used 
by any writer, is the meaning, which was affixed 
to it by those, for whom he immediately wrote. 
For, if a writer, addressing himself in the first 
instance to particular persons or communities, does 


LECTURE III. 


309 


not adapt his expressions to the mode, in which 
they are likely to apply them, he will fail to be 
understood by the very persons, for whose imme¬ 
diate benefit he wrote. When St, Paul , for 
instance, composed an Epistle to any particular 
community, whether at Rome, at Corinth, at 
Ephesus, or any other place, he undoubtedly used 
such expressions , as well as such arguments, as he 
knew would he understood by that community* 
And, as he intended to he understood by that 
community, so and no otherwise did he intend to 
he understood by all other readers, whether in the 
first or in the nineteenth century. Now, in order 
to discover the meaning ascribed to St. Paul’s 
expressions by any particular community to which 
he wrote, we must make ourselves acquainted with 
the peculiar situation of that community. We 
must understand the opinions , which they main¬ 
tained on the subjects, on which St. Paul addressed 
them; or the expressions, which he employed in 
the correction or confutation of those opinions, 
may he understood by us in a different manner 
from that, in which they understood his expres¬ 
sions ; and consequently in a different manner 
from that, in which St. Paul meant them to be 
understood. For if he had not expressed himself 
so as to be understood by those , whose religious 
errors it was his immediate object to remove, his 
immediate object would not have been attained. 


310 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

Again, as the situation and circumstances of 
the original readers afford frequently a clue to an 
author’s meaning, so on the Qther hand, his own 
situation and circumstances are not less necessary 
to be taken into the account. We may lay it 
down therefore as a third rule of interpretation, 
that the words of an author must be so explained, 
as not to make them inconsistent with his known 
character, his known sentiments, his known situ¬ 
ation, and the known circumstances of the subject, 
on which he wrote. 

To judge of the utility of these rules, let us 
take a case of interpretation, which is very com¬ 
mon, and where the leant of them is especially 
felt. When a word has various senses, it often 
happens, that more than one of them will so far 
suit the context, as to afford some sort of meaning 
to the passage. In such a case, an expounder of 
the Bible takes the liberty of exercising his own 
discretion; and this discretion is commonly so 
exercised, as to make the author mean what the 
expounder wishes him to have meant. Instead of 
considering the situation of the author , the ex¬ 
pounder contemplates his own situation. Instead 
of considering the situation of those, w T hom the 
author addressed, the expounder contemplates 
those, whom he himself is addressing. Instead 
of inquiring into the opinions, which it was the 


LECTURE III. 


311 


author's object to confute, he concerns himself 
only with those opinions, which it is his own 
object to confute. In this manner does he divert 
the author’s meaning from its original purpose; 
and by torturing his words, or rather the words of 
his translator , he contrives to extract from them 
a meaning, which they were not intended to con¬ 
vey. But let us ask, in the name of common 
sense, whether it be possible to interpret an author 
as he ought to be interpreted, without due atten¬ 
tion to the preceding rules. Suppose, that an 
ancient author has written on a point of contro¬ 
versy. Will any man venture to assert, that such 
an author can be understood by those, who are 
ignorant of the subject and circumstances of the 
controversy ? Take, for instance, the controversial 
parts of St. Paul’s writings, and see the conse¬ 
quence of expounding them, without a knowledge 
of the subject and circumstances. What was the 
chief controversy, which engaged the attention of 
St. Paul ? It was a controversy between the Jewish 
Converts and the Heathen Converts. The Jewish 
Converts, attached to their former institutions, 
contended that the Law of Moses should be united 
with the Faith of Christ. Had this proposition 
been true , the Heathen Converts would have been 
only imperfect Christians ; and, in order to obtain 
the perfection required of them by the Jewish 
Converts, they must have submitted to the rites 


312 ! INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

enjoined by the Levitical Law. The question 
therefore at issue between them, was simply this; 
Whether a man could become a good Christian , 
without remaining, or becoming a Jew ? This 
question, which was then of the highest impor¬ 
tance, St. Paul has discussed, especially in his 
Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, where 
he has decided the question in the affirmative. 
But the question, there decided, is very different 
from any question, which now agitates the religious 
world: for no man would now suppose, that the 
best Christians are they, who have been Jews. 
Yet how seldom do we find an interpreter of 
St. Paul, who keeps in view the subject and 
circumstances of that controversy, on which St. 
Paul himself was writing? Men interpret his 
Epistles, as if he were a writer of the 'present 
age: and passages, relating solely to the question 
at issue between Jewish and Heathen Converts, 
are so explained, as if the Apostle had been 
sitting in judgment, to decide between Calvin 
and Arminius . 

Here perhaps it will be objected, that as the 
Christian dispensation was designed for all men, 
there is an inconsistency in supposing, that minute 
inquiries into the transactions of antiquity should 
be necessary, in order to comprehend it. How¬ 
ever useful such researches may be in the study 


LECTURE III. 


313 


of the Old Testament, yet to suppose that the 
New Testament, which prescribes not laws and 
regulations for a single nation, but dictates equally 
to all mankind , to suppose that such a work should 
require a knowledge of what happened eighteen 
hundred years ago, and in another quarter of the 
globe, before it can he understood , may appear 
incompatible with the design of the Deity, in 
making it the vehicle of his will. Now the object 
of the Deity is not to be determined by any pre¬ 
conceived opinions, on our part, concerning what 
he ought , or ought not , to have done. What he 
ought to have done, can be discovered by no other 
means, than by inquiring what he has done. And, 
if we find by experience , that the understanding 
of the New , as well as of the Old Testament, 
requires extensive knowledge, we must argue ac¬ 
cordingly. Instead of the gratuitous supposition, 
that things ought to have been otherwise , we must 
conclude that things ought to he, as we find they 
really are; instead of complaining about diffi¬ 
culties, we must endeavour to surmount them, by 
obtaining the knowledge, which God has given us 
the means of obtaining, and which, from its very# 
necessity , we may conclude, it is our duty to obtain. 

It may he further objected, that the situation 
of inspired writers is different from that of com¬ 
mon writers. This is certainly true; it is true. 


314 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

both in respect to the writers themselves, and in 
respect to the confidence, which we may repose in 
them. We may be previously assured, when a 
writer is inspired, that every proposition, which 
he advances, is in strict conformity with the truth. 
But we must understand an inspired writer, as 
well as a common writer; or we shall not know 
what his propositions are. And the very circum¬ 
stance, that his propositions must be true, should 
make us the more anxious to investigate their 
meaning. But how shall we investigate their 
meaning, unless we interpret the words by the 
rules, which we apply to other writings? Shall 
we imitate the Church of Rome, and, rejecting 
the aid of human learning, resolve the interpre¬ 
tation of Scripture into the decrees of a Council, 
on the presumption, that it interprets under the 
influence of the Spirit, and therefore that its 
interpretations are infallible ? Or shall we imi¬ 
tate the modern Enthusiast, who likewise rejects 
the aid of human learning, who likewise aspires 
to the influence of the Spirit, and, acting on the 
same principles as the Church of Rome, deter¬ 
mines with equal ease, and with equal confidence 
in his own decisions ? Or shall we follow the 
example of our Reformers, who, when they had 
rejected Tradition as a guide to the meaning of 
Scripture, supplied the place of that tradition by 
reason and learning? 


LECTURE III. 


315 


It is true, that if we interpret the Scriptures 
by the aid of reason and learning , we must 
resign all pretensions to that infallibility, which 
is claimed by those, who aspire to the influence 
of the Spirit; whether that influence is sup¬ 
posed to display itself in the assurances of an 
individual } or in the decrees of a general council. 
But, on the other hand, there are advantages, 
which compensate for every defect. The man, 
who interprets Scripture by the aid of reason 
and learning, without being elated by the suppo¬ 
sition of a supernatural interference on his ac¬ 
count, will apply, no less modestly than industri¬ 
ously, the means which Providence has placed 
within his reach. While he uses his honest 
endeavours to discover the truth, he will pray to 
God for a blessing on those endeavours: he will 
pray for that ordinary assistance of the Holy 
Spirit, without which all our endeavours must be 
fruitless; but he will not expect that extraor¬ 
dinary assistance, which was granted of old, and 
for higher purposes. He may vary indeed from 
the interpretations of others, and sometimes per¬ 
haps from those which he himself had adopted 
at an earlier period, when his knowledge of the 
subject was more confined . If the final results of 
his interpretation should be such, as in points of 
doctrine to agree with the deductions, which he 
had learnt as articles of faith, he will rejoice at 


316 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

the coincidence, and be thankful, that his labours 
are thus rewarded. But he will feel no enmity 
to those, whose deductions are different; he is too 
well acquainted with the numerous requisites of 
a good interpreter, to expect that they should be 
often united; and knowing, that interpreters, dif¬ 
ferently qualified, and interpreting on different 
principles, can never agree in their results, he 
will have charity for those, whose opinions are 
different from his own. He will believe indeed, 
like other men, that his own opinions are right , 
and consequently, that what opposes them is 
wrong. But the principle , on which he argues, 
that his opinions are right, is very different from 
the principle, on which either a general council , 
or an individual enthusiast , would rest as a basis 
of the truth. He will not pretend, that he 
cannot err ; he will not pretend, even that the 
Church , of which he is a member, cannot err. 
And, though in point of fact , he believes that it 
does not err, yet, as he admits the possibility , he 
feels no enmity to those, who contend, that it 
does err. Though he believes, that he himself 
has rightly interpreted the Bible, and thereon 
founds his conviction, that his own Articles of 
Faith are legitimate deductions from the Bible, 
he is no less desirous of granting to others, than 
of obtaining for himself, the privilege of acting 
from private conviction. The freedom, with which 


LECTURE III. 


317 


he maintains, that the doctrines of his own 
Church are in unison with Scripture, the same 
freedom he allows to those, who claim that unison 
for themselves . He believes indeed, and he 
asserts, that his own is the true religion. Yet he 
thinks it right, that other men should also have 
the liberty of believing and asserting that theirs 
is the true religion. And he submits with humi¬ 
lity to that Almighty Being, who alone cannot 
err, to determine, whether he, or they, be really 
in possession of what each possesses in his own 
belief. 

Such is the interpreter, who explains the 
Bible by the aid of reason and learning. Let us 
now consider the interpreter, who aspires to the 
possession of higher means. When a general 
Council, assembled by the Church of Borne, de¬ 
liberates on points of faith, the Holy Spirit is 
supposed to guide them in their inquiries, and 
to exempt their decisions from even the possi¬ 
bility of a mistake. Here then lies the grand 
distinction between the interpretative principle of 
the Church of Rome, and the interpretative prin¬ 
ciple of the Church of England. The Church of 
England, like all other Christian communities 
without exception, asserts, that its doctrines are 
in strict conformity with Scripture. But in so 
doing, it merely asserts the fact, that it does not 


318 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

err from the truth; whereas the Church of Rome, 
beside the fact of not erring from the truth, 
claims also the opinion , that it cannot err from 
the truth. Now this claim of opinion in addi¬ 
tion to the claim of fact , makes a difference of 
infinitely greater moment, than men in general 
suppose. It has been frequently said, and very 
lately repeated, that, as the two Churches act 
alike in maintaining, each for itself, that it does 
not err, ’tis mere metaphysical subtlety to distin¬ 
guish between the petty terms of 4 does not,’ 
and 4 can not.’ But these terms, insignificant as 
they may appear, denote nothing less, than two 
distinct principles of action , and principles so 
distinct, that the one leads to charity and tole¬ 
ration, the other to intolerance and persecution. 
On the former principle, which is maintained by 
the Church of England, though we believe that 
we are right, we admit, that we are possibly 
wrong; though we believe, that others are wrong , 
we admit that they are possibly right; and 
hence we are disposed to tolerate their opinions. 
But on the latter principle, which is maintained 
by the Church of Rome, the very possibility of 
being right is denied to those, who dissent from 
its doctrines. Now, as soon as men have per¬ 
suaded themselves, that in points of doctrine they 
cannot err, they will think it an imperious duty 
to prevent the growth of all other opinions on 


LECTURE III. 


319 


a subject so important as religion. Should argu¬ 
ment therefore fail, the importance of the end 
will be supposed to justify the worst of means. 
But the intolerance, thus produced by an imagi¬ 
nary exemption from error, is far from being con¬ 
fined to the Church of Rome . The same into¬ 
lerance is produced in every man, who imagines, 
that he interprets the Scriptures under the espe¬ 
cial guidance of the Holy Spirit. It makes no 
difference, in this respect, whether such especial 
guidance is supposed to be vouchsafed to a gene¬ 
ral council , or to an individual in his private 
apartments. The result in either case is the 
same. In either case, the persons who believe 
themselves so gifted , will conclude, that they 
cannot err. In either case, they will deem it 
impious to tolerate what the Spirit, as they ima¬ 
gine, has condemned. And hence we may justly 
infer, that the same inquisitorial power, which 
has been exercised by the Church of Home, would 
be exercised by others , who set up similar pre¬ 
tensions, if the means of employing that power 
were once at their command. 

Have we not then sufficient ground for resist¬ 
ing pretensions, no less dangerous to the com¬ 
munity, than fallacious in themselves ? Can we 
want further arguments for the interpretation of 
Scripture by reason and learning? Perhaps in- 


820 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

deed I ought not in this place to use arguments 
at all in their favour. It may appear superfluous 
to plead for reason and learning in an University 
like this , where mathematical acumen and classi¬ 
cal literature go hand in hand. But it is the 
misfortune of many well-intentioned young men, 
to have been seduced into a belief, that the acute¬ 
ness of reasoning, which is wanted in mathematics , 
and the learning, which they employ in the study 
of the classics , may be laid aside as useless, nay, 
even as an encumbrance, when they transfer their 
inquiries to religion. The words of man's wisdom 
are then exchanged for a supposed demonstration 
of the Spirit. But let us not deceive ourselves on 
so momentous a subject. Because an inspired 
Apostle has declared, that his wisdom was derived 
from the suggestions of the Holy Spirit, let us 
not imagine, that our wisdom will be dignified 
by the same supernatural aid. Because an in¬ 
spired Apostle has declared, that his wisdom was 
not the wisdom of man, but the power of God , 
let us not imagine, that the same divine illumina¬ 
tion, the same intellectual light, in which St. 
Paul composed his Epistles, will be infused into 
a modern expounder of them. Nor, because 
St. Paul has declared, that the wisdom of this 
world is foolishness with God, let us conclude, 
that the duty of a Christian requires him to dis¬ 
card from the study of the Bible the assistance of 


LECTURE III. 


321 


human learning. The wisdom of this world, 
which St. Paul advised the Corinthians to reject, 
is very different from that, which is meant by 
human learning: indeed so different, that they, 
who are least acquainted with the latter, are 
often best acquainted with the former. Let us 
remember also, that they who depreciate human 
learning, as the means of interpreting the Scrip¬ 
tures, depreciate what was the pillar of the Re¬ 
formation : that they act contrary, both to the 
j principles , and to the practice of our Reformers: 
that they would involve us in mental darkness, 
and thus bring us back to Popery again. 

Lastly, let us inquire, whether the rules of 
interpretation, which apply to human authors, 
are still applicable, when Scripture is referred to 
the Holy Spirit as its author. Now in whatever 
manner we suppose that inspiration was commu¬ 
nicated, and whatever degree of agency we ascribe 
to the writers themselves , we shall find, that the 
words of Scripture must be still interpreted by 
the same rules as those, which apply to the words 
of merely human authors. If the Sacred Writers 
were so inspired, that, while their knowledge was 
suggested to them, the mode of committing that 
knowledge to writing was left to their own dis¬ 
cretion, the words which they employed for that 
purpose, must evidently be interpreted as their 
X 


322 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

words, and consequently by the rules above 
described. Nor will the conclusion be different, 
if the words were inspired. For if the words 
themselves were dictated by the Holy Spirit, the 
choice of those words must have been determined 
by the same rules, as if they had been chosen by 
the Sacred Writers. The choice of them must 
have equally depended on their common usage in 
the intercourse between man and man. If they 
had not been so chosen, they would not have 
been understood by man. They would not have 
conveyed to the reader what was thought by the 
author, and the object of revelation would not 
have been attained. 



INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 


-♦- 

LECTURE IV. 

The rules of interpretation, explained in the 
last Lecture, were founded on the usage of words, 
either general, or particular. Now the usage of 
words in any language means the use of them as 
determined by the practice of those, who spake 
and wrote the language. Lexicographers there¬ 
fore, when they give the senses of words, accom¬ 
pany those senses with passages from authors, who 
have used them in those senses : and the passages, 
thus quoted, are considered as authorities or vouch¬ 
ers, that such senses belong to those words. When 
a Lexicon however relates to a dead language, the 
compiler of it is seldom in possession of authors 
sufficiently numerous and multifarious, to teach 
him the usage of that language in its full extent . 
Examples of the same word occurring only in 
a few instances, are common in most of the dead 
X 2 



324 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

languages, and in none so much as in the Hebrew. 
But the less frequently a word is used, the fewer 
are the opportunities afforded by the language 
itself, of learning what the usage of it is. 'No r 
are the examples uncommon of words occurring 
only once among the authors extant in a dead 
language. And in such cases, the language itself 
affords us no other opportunity of learning its 
usage, than one single comparison of a word with 
others in connexion with it. And though the 
majority of words in a dead language may often 
occur, yet whenever the number of their senses 
bears a considerable proportion to the whole 
number of examples, the authorities for each 
single sense will be proportionally reduced . 

To aid therefore our imperfect means of dis¬ 
covering by observation the usage of words, we 
must extend our inquiry beyond the mere relation 
of words to those who use them. We must con¬ 
sider the relation, which words, as signs, bear 
immediately to the notions, of which they are 
signs: and we must further inquire into the 
ground of that relation. For, though the mean¬ 
ing of words is no other than that, in which they 
have been actually used, we must not conclude, 
that usage is altogether fortuitous . Though the 
connexion between words and their notions is 
conventional, that convention may have been 


LECTURE IY. 


325 


regulated by determinate laws. Indeed the con¬ 
nexion between words and their notions may 
have originated in various causes. But unless 
the causes are understood, we cannot judge of 
the effects . Let us inquire therefore into the 
origin of that connexion, which subsists between 
words, as signs, and the notions of which they 
are signs. 

A word may be considered at present, either 
as something seen, or as something heard: either 
as a written word, or as a spoken word: either as 
a visible, or as an audible sign, of its notion. But 
in the infancy of language, it was only an audible, 
not a visible sign. A word was then a mere sound, 
or utterance of the voice, conveying to the hearer 
some notion entertained by the speaker. And, 
though the invention of writing was introduced in 
so early an age, that all remembrance of that 
invention is lost in the darkness of remote anti¬ 
quity, a considerable period must have elapsed 
before spoken words could have acquired a repre¬ 
sentation in written words. Indeed, before any 
attempt was made to write by the use of letters, 
it is probable that in every country some kind of 
hieroglyphic or picture-writing was employed. 
But representations of this kind had no connexion 
whatever with the use of letters: they could not 
even have led to the invention of letters. They 


326 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

* 

were representations, not of the words , but of the 
objects , to which the words referred . They were 
easy and obvious representations, when applied to 
external objects; nor was the transition difficult , 
when representations were wanted for things 
abstracted from the observation of the senses. 
Some resemblance to a visible object suggested 
a correspondent mark; as, for instance, when 
a circle , which is a line without end, was used 
in hieroglyphics, to denote a period without end. 
But, as soon as men began to write with those 
characters, which are called letters , they no longer 
represented the objects , to which the words had 
reference. The thing then represented was the 
sound , or utterance of the voice , which denoted 
the object. Letters are elements, which are simply 
expressive of sound; and they were probably 
suggested by the different forms assumed by the 
mouth in the utterance of each single sound. 
In the most ancient languages, each letter was 
a distinct syllable, a distinct single sound; and 
hence they were easily combined into forms 
expressive of combined sounds. In this manner 
did the spoken word acquire a representation in 
the written word; and thenceforward they were 
so identified, that the word became no less 
a determinate sign to the reader of what was 
thought by the writer, than it was previously to 
the hearer of what was thought by the speaker. 


LECTURE IV. 


327 


In the interpretation therefore of words it is 
immaterial at present, whether we consider them 
as visible , or consider them as audible signs. But 
there is another relation between words and their 
notions, which has very material influence on the 
usage of them in every language. And in order to 
understand this relation, we must consider in what 
manner it is probable, that language itself was 
originally formed. The first notions, which men 
must have wanted to convey to others by the 
means of words, were notions excited by objects 
of the senses: and, when words had been provided 
for these notions, the next effort was the invention 
of words for notions acquired by reflection. But 
here a difficulty occurred, which did not occur in 
the former case. The words, which were first 
employed in the infancy of language, to denote 
external objects, were probably, more or less, an 
echo to the sense. The particular tones , which 
were uttered by different animals , or were heard 
in the operations of inanimate nature, suggested 
probably the sounds or words, by which the first 
attempts were made to express the correspondent 
objects. And, though an object, which itself was 
destitute of sound, was more easily represented 
to the eye, than to the ear , more easily provided 
with a picture , than with a word , yet an object, 
even by its external form , or an action, by the 
mode of its operation , might have occasioned in 


328 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 


the person, who was forming a sound for it, such 
a formation of the mouth , as produced a corre¬ 
spondent utterance, In short, external objects, 
as well as external actions, might, in various ways, 
which it is here unnecessary to detail, have 
suggested the sounds or words, which were origi¬ 
nally used to denote them. But when words were 
wanted for things, which could be neither heard, 
nor seen, nor perceived by any other of the senses, 
there was no clue , which could lead directly to 
a sound corresponding with the thing to be repre^ 
sented. All notions, acquired by reflexion , are 
excluded by their very origin, from any immediate 
resemblance with either visible or audible signs. 
They may operate indeed mediately , if they ope¬ 
rate on the passions: for in that case an effect 
may be produced, either in the voice , or in the 
gesture , which may give rise to a sound corre¬ 
sponding with that effect , and therefore indirectly 
with the cause, which produced that effect. But 
if the notion was so abstracted from all sensible 
effect, as to produce no external mark, which 
might have suggested a correspondent sound, a 
sound, or word, must have been provided for it 
in one of these two ways. Either an arbitrary 
sound must have been invented, without any 
attempt at similitude between the sound and the 
thing to be represented by it; or some similitude 
must have been sought between the abstract 


LECTURE IT. 


329 


notion , for which a word was wanted , and some 
other notion, already provided with a word . The 
latter mode was not only more easy and obvious; 
but also more consonant with an early state of 
civilization, when the imagination is always more 
employed in finding resemblances , than the judg¬ 
ment in discovering differences. In such cases 
therefore, it would frequently, and perhaps com¬ 
monly happen, that words already provided for 
one purpose, would, for want of new words, he 
applied to another purpose, in consequence of 
some resemblance , whether real or imaginary, be¬ 
tween the primary and the secondary purpose. 

In this representation of the origin and for¬ 
mation of language, we see the foundation of 
those distinctions in the senses of words, which 
are observed in all languages, and which are ex¬ 
pressed by the terms, proper and improper sense— 
literal and figurative sense — grammatical and 
tropical sense. When a word is used in that 
sense, which was first annexed to it, the sense, 
in which it is thus used, is its own, or its 
proper sense. But when a word is wanted for a 
sense, which has had no word exclusively attached 
to it, and it is necessary therefore to employ some 
word, which has already a connexion of its own, 
the word, so used in a sense, which does not 
properly belong to it, is said to be used in an 


330 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

improper sense. The literal sense of a word cor¬ 
responds so far to its proper sense, that the term 
literal , by referring to the elements , of which a 
word is composed, implies that the word is used 
in its original simplicity, or its original sense. 
But as the original sense of a word is frequently 
lost, especially in its transition from one language 
to another, some derivative sense, occupying the 
place of the original sense, becomes, from that 
time, the literal sense. Now the literal sense is 
no other than the grammatical sense, the term 
grammatical having the same reference to the 
Greek language, as the term literal to the Latin. 
They equally refer to the elements of a w r ord. 
For a similar reason, the tropiccd sense is no other 
than the figurative sense. As we say in language 
derived from the Greek, that a trope is used, when 
a word is turned from its literal or grammatical 
sense, so we say in language derived from the 
Latin, that a figure is then used, because in such 
cases the meaning of the word assumes a new 
form . The same opposition therefore, which is 
expressed by the terms literal sense and figurative 
sense , is expressed also by the terms grammatical 
sense and tropical sense. But the opposition ex¬ 
pressed by the terms proper sense and improper 
sense is of a different description. When a word 
is diverted from its proper sense, the senses, to 
which it is applied, are, all of them, denominated 


LECTURE IV. 


331 


improper senses, of whatever number or kind those 
senses may be. But though a figurative sense is 
always an improper sense, as being equally a de¬ 
parture from the first sense, an improper sense is 
not always a figurative sense. To make a sense 
figurative in the common acceptation of the term, 
there must not only be a departure from the first 
sense, as in the case of an improper sense, but 
there must at the same time be excited some¬ 
thing like an image in the mind. 

All languages are more or less figurative: but 
they are the most so in their most early state. 
Before language is provided with a stock of words, 
sufficient in their literal sense to express what is 
wanted, men are under the necessity of extending 
the use of their words beyond the literal sense. 
But the application, when once begun , is not 
limited by the bounds prescribed by necessity. 
The imagination, always occupied with resem¬ 
blances, which are the foundation of figures, dis¬ 
poses men to seek for figurative terms, where they 
might have expressed themselves in literal terms. 
Figurative language presents a kind of picture to 
the mind, and thus delights while it instructs; 
whence the use of it, though more necessary , 
when a language is poor and uncultivated, is never 
laid aside, especially in the writings of orators and 
poets. The Hebrew language is highly figurative, 


332 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

as well in the prophetical as in the poetical parts 
of the Old Testament. The speeches and dis¬ 
courses of our Saviour are not less figurative: and 
numerous mistakes have been made by a literal 
application of what was figuratively meant. When 
our Saviour said to the Jews, “ Destroy this tem¬ 
ple, and in three days I will raise it up,” the 
Jews understood the word ‘ temple’ in its literal 
sense, and asked him whether he could raise again 
in three days what had taken six and forty years 
to build. They did not perceive, that his language 
was figurative , and that he spake of the temple 
of his body . 

But among all the mistakes, which have been 
made in the interpretation of that figurative lan¬ 
guage, so frequently employed by our Saviour, 
there is none, which has led to such important 
consequences, and has created such dissensions in 
the Christian world, as that which relates to the 
body of Christ, at the celebration of the Holy 
Sacrament. When our Saviour at the Last Sup¬ 
per took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, he 
gave it to his disciples, saying. Take, eat, this is 
my body. In like manner, when he had taken the 
cup, and given thanks, he said to his disciples. 
Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the New 
Testament. In the same figurative language he 
had spoken on a former occasion, when he said, 


LECTURE IV. 


333 


He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, 
dwelleth in me, and I in him. And then com¬ 
paring his body with bread, he added, 4 This is 
that bread, which came down from heaven.’ The 
Jews indeed as well on this occasion, as when he 
spake of the temple of his body, understood him 
literally, and asked, 4 How can this man give us 
his flesh to eat?’ though our Saviour himself, 
when he said of his body, that it was the bread 
which came down from heaven, plainly indicated, 
that he was only comparing his body with bread. 
The Church of Rome has followed the example 
of the Jews , and has likewise ascribed a literal 
meaning to words, which were purely figurative. 
But the difficulty which pressed upon the Jews, in 
regard to literally eating the body of Christ, is not 
felt by the Church of Rome . The mistake of the 
Jews consisted in supposing, that our Saviour 
literally offered them his body to be eaten; where¬ 
as he literally offered his body as a sacrifice , and 
what he offered in 7'emembrance of that sacrifice 
was literally bread and wine. But the Church of 
Rome, regarding the ceremony of the Lord’s 
Supper as an actual representation of that sacrifice, 
not as a commemoration of it, supposes, that the 
body and blood of Christ is literally presented to 
the view of the communicant. And believing, 
that Christ himself, by the consecration of the 
bread and wine at the Last Supper, had literally 


334 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

converted them into his own body and blood, be¬ 
fore he said to his disciples, * This is my body,’ 
and ‘ this is my blood/ they conclude, that the 
miraculous conversion, thus ascribed to Christ 
himself, (a conversion, which, had it been neces¬ 
sary , lay undoubtedly within the reach of almighty 
power) is equally performed by the human power 
of an officiating priest. But the Church of 
England, with due attention to that figurative 
style, so frequently employed by our Saviour on 
other occasions, has interpreted his words on that 
solemn occasion by the rules of analogy, and by 
the dictates of common sense. We eat the bread 
in remembrance, that Christ died for us; we feed 
on him only in our hearts by faith with thanks¬ 
giving. We believe, that the blood of Christ was 
shed for us, and will preserve us to everlasting 
life. But the cup, which we drink, we drink 
only in remembrance that Christ’s blood was 
shed for us. The same interpretation of our 
Saviour’s words was adopted by the Reformers 
in general, with the exception only of Luther. 
He firmly indeed resisted the doctrine of Tran- 
substantiation, or an actual change in the substance 
of the elements, as maintained by the Church of 
Rome. He so far took the words of Christ in 
a figurative sense, as not to believe that the bread 
and wine, even after the consecration, meant the 
same things as the body and blood of Christ. 


LECTURE IY. 


335 


He believed that the bread and wine still re¬ 
tained their proper qualities. But he was per¬ 
plexed by the expression. This is my body; and 
though conference after conference was holden on 
the subject, he could never be persuaded to 
construe that expression consistently with the 
figurative language which is used throughout; 
and he persevered to the last in so strict an inter¬ 
pretation of that expression, as if it meant. This 
is really and literally my body. Having rejected 
however the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or 
an actual change in the elements, he endeavoured 
to remove the difficulty, in which he had unne¬ 
cessarily involved himself, by supposing that, after 
the consecration, the body of Christ was united 
with the bread; and this union (not conversion) 
of substance was called Consubstantiation. But 
there was a difficulty still remaining, which occa¬ 
sioned a controversy of long duration after Lu¬ 
ther’s death. The Divines of Switzerland objected 
to the Lutherans, that our Saviour could not be 
every where corporeally present, which the doc¬ 
trine of Consubstantiation implied; while the 
Lutherans, on their parts, endeavoured to remove 
that objection, by accounting for the hypostatic 
union on the ground of what they technically 
termed ‘ Communicatio idiomatum,’ or the Com¬ 
munication of properties. And since Christ, as 
God, must be omnipresent in respect to his divine 


336 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

nature, they hence inferred, that as this divine 
nature had been united to his human nature, 
there existed a communication of properties from 
the former to the latter, which made him corpo¬ 
really present, where he was spiritually present. 
The argument however did not satisfy their 
opponents, who thought it wiser to prevent the 
difficulty, by an uniformly consistent interpreta¬ 
tion of figurative language. 

The importance therefore of a due distinction 
between the literal and figurative use of words 
in the interpretation of Scripture, can require no 
further illustration. But in all cases, the literal 
meaning of a word must be the first object of our 
inquiry, because its figurative meaning is only 
an applied meaning; and, to judge of the pro¬ 
priety of the application, we must understand 
the nature of the thing applied. If a word 
has one sense, that sense is of course considered 
as its literal sense. But if it has various 
senses, it then becomes a matter of inquiry, and 
sometimes of difficult inquiry, in what manner 
those various senses shall be arranged. Now 
as the words, which relate to the compound no¬ 
tions of reflexion, are used for the most part 
with the greatest latitude, an examination of 
the manner, in which the various senses of such 
words may have been successively formed\ will 


LECTURE IV. 


337 


most easily suggest the general principle, on 
which the senses of words should he arranged. 
When such a compound notion is altered only 
by the subtraction of one of its constituent no¬ 
tions, or by the addition of one other simple 
notion, the second state of that compound notion 
will so nearly resemble its first state, that the 
difference will be hardly perceptible; and hence 
the same word, which expressed it in its first 
state, will follow it to its second state. By a 
similar addition or subtraction, this compound 
notion enters on a third state, differing more 
from the first, hut still resembling the second. 
In like manner it goes on to a fom'th and a fifth 
state, each resembling the state immediately pre¬ 
ceding it, hut differing more and more from the 
first state, till at length the word acquires a 
meaning, which has little or no resemblance with 
the primary meaning. Examples of this descrip¬ 
tion are numerous in every language : and there 
is no department of interpretation, which affords 
such scope for the skill of the artist, as the dis¬ 
covery and the due arrangement of these several 
senses. If we put them together in any other 
order, than that, in which they were successively 
formed , we shall never comprehend how the same 
word could have acquired such a variety of senses; 
and consequently we shall be exposed to per¬ 
petual doubt, whether a word, which admits of 
Y 


338 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

one sense, is capable of being applied in another. 
To facilitate the analysis, we should endeavour in 
the first place to discover, which among the va¬ 
rious senses could most easily have given rise to 
all the rest: for this must have been the primary 
sense. That which most resembles it, must be 
the second in order; and so onward. In this 
manner we may form a genealogy of senses, in 
which the resemblance between each parent and 
its immediate offspring is distinctly visible, though 
all resemblance be lost between the ancestor and 
the latest descendant. No Lexicographer has 
paid such attention to this genealogy of senses, 
as Schleusner in his Lexicon to the Greek Tes¬ 
tament, a Lexicon, which should be in the posses¬ 
sion of every student in Theology. 

Nor is it enough, that an interpreter of Scrip¬ 
ture understands this arrangement of senses, in 
regard only to the words of the original. He 
must be equally attentive to the language, which 
he employs, as the medium of interpretation. 
For it frequently happens, that one language 
authorises a figurative use of words, which is not 
applicable to the words, that literally correspond 
to them in another language. If then the lat¬ 
ter are substituted for the former, where the 
former are used in their figurative sense, we shall 
have an interpretation, it is true, but such an 


LECTURE IV. 


339 


interpretation, as conveys to the reader what was 
thought by the Interpreter , not what was thought 
by the author. Here then we again perceive 
the superiority of the learned above the unlearned 
interpreter. The former extracts the senses, 
which attach to the words, and thus produces 
an imposition. The latter, intent only on im¬ 
posing his own meaning on the word's, produces 
what may be termed rather an /^position. Above 
all things, let us beware of the false conclusion, 
that we have discovered the meaning of a word, 
if it does but make a passage intelligible. For 
if the meaning of a word had nothing else to 
determine it, than the mere circumstance of its 
making the passage intelligible , the sense of 
Scripture would be involved in the greatest am¬ 
biguity. It often happens, that various senses 
may be ascribed to a word, and yet that in each 
case the sentence will be intelligible. It is pos¬ 
sible even, that in each case it will convey a 
truth. But, if it conveys not that truth, which 
was intended by the author , it conveys not the 
truth, with which we are then concerned. 

After what has been already said on the 
general nature of literal and figurative lan¬ 
guage, it cannot be necessary to examine in detail 
the several hinds of figures, which have been 
enumerated by grammarians and rhetoricians. 


340 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

Indeed the figures of diction , as they are called, 
relate merely to the addition or subtraction of 
letters or syllables, and have no concern what¬ 
ever with the interpretation of words . Nor 

have we, in this respect, any concern with the 
figures of construction; for they relate to gram¬ 
matical arrangement, and not to the meaning 
of words. In short, the figure, with which we 
are chiefly concerned, is Metaphor: for it is 
a figure, which is more frequently employed, 
than all other figures of rhetoric put together. 
Now, as similitude is the foundation of figu¬ 
rative language in general , so is it especially 
of Metaphor. Indeed a Metaphor is itself a 
Simile, though not in the form of a Simile. 
For instance, if we say of a distinguished Di¬ 
vine, that he supports the established religion, 
as a pillar supports the incumbent edifice, we 
make use of a Simile, drawn out in the form 
of a Simile. But if we contract the Simile 
into a single position, and give a metaphorical 
sense to the word Pillar, which before was used 
literally , we may then say of such a person, that 
he is a pillar of the Church. On the other 
hand, as any one who was secretly at work 
for its destruction , might he compared with 
a man, who was undermining an edifice, we 
should say in metaphorical language, that such 
a person was undermining the Church. But 


LECTURE IV. 


341 


if the mine should at length explode , and the 
Church should fall , the defender of that Church 
might exclaim, again in Metaphor, and again 
in Truth, 


Impavidum ferient ruince. 



INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 


-4-- 

LECTURE V. 

The last Lecture having concluded with an 
explanation of Metaphor , our present inquiry 
must .be directed to Allegory. But before we 
attempt the interpretation of the latter , we should 
clearly understand its relation to the former. 
Now a Metaphor , as the origin of the term im¬ 
ports, is a kind of transfer , which takes place 
whenever a word, belonging properly to one sub¬ 
ject, is transferred to another subject, to which 
it does not properly belong. If we apply the 
word ‘ pillar’ to an edifice , we apply it where 
it properly belongs: hut if we transfer it to 
a person , we apply it where it does not pro¬ 
perly belong. The metaphorical sense there¬ 
fore, like the figurative sense in general , belongs 
to the class of improper senses; and it possesses 
in an eminent manner that character of the figu¬ 
rative sense, which consists in presenting an image 
to the mind. When a Statesman is called a 
pillar of the State, or a Churchman a pillar of 
the Church, there is presented an image, which 



LECTURE V. 


343 


exhibits more clearly, as well as more forcibly, 
what is meant to be expressed, than could have 
been expressed by a mere literal term. But meta¬ 
phorical interpretation always remains an inter¬ 
pretation of words; whereas allegorical interpre¬ 
tation, as we shall presently find, is an inter¬ 
pretation, not of words , but of things. 

An Allegory indeed has been sometimes con¬ 
sidered as only a lengthened Metaphor; at other 
times as a continuation of Metaphors. But we 
shall best understand, both the nature of Alle¬ 
gory itself and the character of allegorical inter¬ 
pretation , by attending to the origin of the term, 
which denotes it. Now the term * Allegory , 5 ac¬ 
cording to its original and proper meaning, de¬ 
notes—a representation of one thing, which is 
intended to excite the representation of another 
thing. Every Allegory therefore must be sub¬ 
jected to a twofold examination: we must first 
examine the immediate representation, and then 
consider, what other representation it was in¬ 
tended to excite. Now in most Allegories the 
immediate representation is made in the form of 
a narrative: and since it is the object of an 
Allegory to convey a moral , not an historic truth, 
the narrative itself is commonly fictitious. The 
immediate representation is of no further value, 
than as it leads to the ultimate representation. 


344 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

It is the application , or the moral , of the Alle¬ 
gory, which constitutes its worth. 

Since then an Allegory comprehends two dis¬ 
tinct representations , the interpretation of an 
Allegory must comprehend two distinct opera¬ 
tions. The first of them relates to the immediate 
representation; the second to the ultimate re¬ 
presentation. The immediate representation is 
understood from the words of the Allegory: 
the ultimate representation depends on the imme¬ 
diate representation applied to its proper end. 
In the interpretation therefore of the former , we 
are concerned with an interpretation of words; 
in the interpretation of the latter, we are con¬ 
cerned with the things signified by the words. 
Now, whenever we speak of allegorical interpre¬ 
tation, we have always in view the ultimate re¬ 
presentation, and consequently are then concerned 
with an interpretation of things. The interpre¬ 
tation of the words , which attaches only to the 
immediate representation, or the plain narrative 
itself is commonly called the grammatical , or 
the literal interpretation; though we should 
speak more correctly , if we called it the verbal 
interpretation, since even in the plainest narra¬ 
tives, even in narratives not designed for moral 
application, the use of words is never restricted 
to their mere literal senses. Custom however 


LECTURE V. 


345 


having sanctioned the application of the term 
literal , instead of the term verbal interpretation, 
to mark the opposition to allegorical interpre¬ 
tation, we must understand it accordingly. But 
whatever be the term, whether verbal or literal , 
which we employ to express the interpretation of 
the words , we must never forget, that the allego¬ 
rical interpretation is the interpretation of the 
things; of the things signified by the words, not 
of the words themselves . If we lose sight of 
this distinction, the subject of allegorical inter¬ 
pretation will immediately be involved-in obscu¬ 
rity. Indeed the numerous difficulties, which 
have usually attended the treatment of it, have 
been chiefly owing to this cause. An interpre¬ 
tation of things has been treated, as if it were an 
interpretation of words; and this heterogeneous 
mixture of subject and predicate has occasioned 
equal perplexity, in the arguments, and in the 
conclusions. 

That the subject of allegorical interpretation, 
which is of high importance to the Sacred Writ¬ 
ings, may be better understood, let us apply the 
principle, which has been here explained, to a few 
examples of Scripture. And as every parable 
is a kind of allegory, let us consider in the first 
place, that example, which is especially clear and 
correct, the parable of the sower. “ A sower went 


346 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

“ out to sow his seed. And, as he sowed, some 
“ fell by the way-side; and it was trodden down, 
“ and the fowls of the air devoured it. And 
“ some fell upon a rock: and as soon as it sprang 
u up, it withered away, because it lacked mois- 
“ ture. And some fell among thorns: and the 
44 thorns sprang up with it, and choked it. And 
“ other fell on good ground: and sprang up, and 
“ bare fruit an hundred-fold.” Here we have a 
•plain narrative, a statement of a few simple and 
intelligible facts, such probably as had fallen 
within the observation of the persons, to whom 
our Saviour addressed himself. When he had 
finished the narrative, or the immediate represen¬ 
tation of the allegory, he then gave the explana¬ 
tion , or the ultimate representation of it. That 
is, he gave the allegorical interpretation of it. 
And that this allegorical interpretation was an 
interpretation, not of the words , but of the 
things signified by the words, is evident from the 
explanation itself. “ The seed is the Word of 
“ God. Those by the way-side are they that 
“ hear: then cometli the devil, and taketh away 
“ the Word out of their hearts, lest they should 
“ believe and be saved. They on the rock are 
“ they, which, when they hear, receive the Word 
“ with joy: and these have no root, which for 
“ a while believe, and in time of temptation fall 
“ away. And that, which fell among thorns, are 


LECTURE V. 


347 


“ they, which, when they have heard, go forth, 
“ and are choked with cares, and riches, and 
“ pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to per- 
“ fection. But that on the good ground are they, 
“ which in an honest and good heart having 
“ heard the Word, keep it, and bring forth fruit 
“ with patience.” Here then we have an evident 
explanation, not of the words employed in the 
narrative, hut of the things signified by them. It 
was the seed itself with which the Word of God 
was compared. As the seed was choked, which 
fell among thorns, so the Word of God is choked 
by the pleasures of the world: and, as that which 
fell on good ground produced an hundred-fold, so 
the Word of God produces in those, who are 
prepared to receive it. In short, an Allegory 
with its application constitutes a kind of Si¬ 
mile, in both parts of which the words them¬ 
selves are construed, as on other occasions, either 
literally or figuratively, according to the respec¬ 
tive use of them: and then we institute the 
comparison between the things signified in the 
former part with the things signified; in the 
latter part. 

Let us now take, as an example of Allegory 
from the Old Testament, that impressive and 
pathetic Allegory, addressed by Nathan to David. 
“ There were two men in one city, the one rich. 


348 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

“ and the other poor. The rich man had exceed- 
“ ing many flocks and herds. But the poor man 
“ had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which 
“ he had bought and nourished up ; and it grew 
“ together with him and with his children ; it 
“ did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own 
“ cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him 
“ as a daughter. And there came a traveller 
“ unto the rich man, and he spared to take of 
“ his own flock, and of his own herd, to dress for 
" the way-faring man, that was come unto him; 
“ but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it 
“ for the man, that was come to him.” When 
Nathan had finished this narrative, which he had 
addressed to David, as an allegory, David, not 
immediately perceiving the intended application, 
replied, “ As the Lord liveth, the man, that has 
“ done this thing, shall surely die: and he shall 
“ restore the lamb four-fold, because he did this 
“ thing, and because he had no pity.” In applica¬ 
tion, then of the narrative to the intended purpose, 
Nathan replied to David, “ Thou art the man. 

“ Thus saith the Lord God of Israel; I anointed 
“ thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee 
“ out of the hand of Saul, and I gave thee thy 
“ master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy 
“ bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and 
“ of Judah; and if that had been too little, I 
“ would moreover have given unto thee such and 


LECTURE V. 


349 


“ such things. Wherefore hast thou despised the 
“ commandment of the Lord to do evil in his 
“sight? Thou hast killed Uriah the Hittfte 
“ with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be 
“ thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of 
“ the children of Ammon.” 

In the preceding examples, the allegorical 
narratives were accompanied with their explana¬ 
tions ; that is, both parts of the Simile were 
introduced. But allegorical narratives are more 
frequently left to explain themselves , especially 
when the resemblance between the immediate and 
the ultimate representation is sufficiently apparent, 
to make an explanation unnecessary. Of this 
kind we cannot have a more striking example, 
than one, which has been frequently quoted, name¬ 
ly, that beautiful allegory in the eightieth Psalm. 
“ Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou 
“ hast cast out the heathen, and planted it. Thou 
“ preparedst room for it, and didst cause it to 
“ take deep root, and it filled the land. The hills 
“ were covered with the shadow of it, and the 
“ boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars. 
“ She sent out her boughs unto the sea, and 
“ her branches unto the river. Why hast thou 
“ broken down her hedges, so that they, which 
“ pass by the way, do pluck her ? The boar 
“ out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild 


350 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

“ beast of the field doth devour it, Return, 
“ we beseech thee, O God of hosts, look down 
“ from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine.” 
In this Allegory was finely depictured the then- 
unhappy state of the Jews contrasted with their 
former prosperity: and its application was suf¬ 
ficiently obvious, without any formal explana¬ 
tion ; for the vineyard of the Lord of hosts , 
was the house of Israel. It is indeed an 
essential requisite in every Allegory, which is 
left to explain itself that the application be 
easy and obvious. The subject, designed to 
be suggested must be one that is familiar 
to the reader; and the several circumstances 
of the immediate representation, must have a 
manifest correspondence with those of the ul¬ 
timate representation. The immediate repre¬ 
sentation must be consistent also in its several 
parts. Whatever object be selected for the com¬ 
parison, that object must be kept constantly in 
view; and we must be careful that nothing 
be affirmed of it, which does not properly be¬ 
long to it. Otherwise the Allegory itself will 
displease by its incongruity, and lose its effect 
in the application. 

After these examples from Scripture , let me 
be allowed to quote an instance of Allegory from 
a profane author, especially as it has been made 


LECTURE V. 


351 


a subject of examination by Quintillian. It is the 
well-known passage in Horace, 

O Navis, referent in mare te novi 

Fluctus ? O quid agis ? Fortiter occupa 

Portum. 

On this passage Quintillian observes, “ Navim 
“ pro republica, fluctuum tempestates pro bellis 
“ civilibus, portum pro pace atque concordia 
“ dicit.” But, though the passage may be ex - 
plained by the substitutions here made, it is 
not that the words , used by Horace, are syno- 
nymous with the words , employed by Quintillian 
for the explanation; but because the things 
signified by the former may be compared with 
the things signified by the latter. It is not that 
Navis can signify a republic, or that Fluctus 
can signify civil wars, or that Portus can signify 
peace. But a ship tossed by the waves may be 
compared with a nation agitated by civil wars, 
as a ship, lying safely in harbour, may be again 
compared with a nation enjoying the blessings of 
peace. Here then we have another proof, that 
allegorical interpretation is an interpretation, not 
of words , but of things. 

From the preceding explanations we are en¬ 
abled also to reconcile two seemingly contra¬ 
dictory assertions on this subject, for which it 
would be otherwise difficult to account. It is 


352 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

well known, that many of the ancient Fathers 
were so fond of allegorical interpretation, as to 
employ it, not only in the interpretation of 
allegory , hut also in the interpretation of history. 
In this respect has Jerom complained especially 
of Origen, “ quod ita allegorize t, ut historic 
auferat veritatem .” On the other hand, Ernesti 
in his Opuscula philologica et critica, has a Dis¬ 
sertation entitled, De Origene interpretations 
lihrorum sacrorum grammaticae auctore. If Origen 
then, according to Ernesti, was so distinguished 
for his grammatical interpretation, with what 
propriety could Jerom complain, that he was so 
attached to allegorical interpretation ? Is not 
grammatical or literal interpretation always con¬ 
sidered as opposite to allegorical interpretation? 
How then, it may be asked, could the interpre¬ 
tations of Origen be considered as grammatical 
by one writer, and as allegorical by another ? 
Now this seeming mystery will he explained at 
once, when we consider, that as Allegory com¬ 
prehends two distinct representations, the inter¬ 
pretation of it comprehends two distinct operations. 
The one relates to its irrtmediate , the other to 
its ultimate representation. The one is an in¬ 
terpretation of words; the other of the things 
signified by the words. The former is the literal 
or grammatical; the latter the allegorical inter¬ 
pretation. Here then we see very clearly, that 


LECTURE Y. 


353 


both literal and allegorical interpretation, though 
opposed to each other, not only may exist together, 
hut actually do exist together in the interpretation 
of every Allegory. And they exist together with¬ 
out any inconsistency, because they relate to two 
distinct operations. The same reasoning applies 
also to any example of real history, if that ex¬ 
ample be treated as allegory, and adapted to some 
purpose beside the narrative, as allegory is in its 
ultimate representation. For in such a case we 
have an historical narrative subjected to a two-fold 
interpretation ; of which the first is the literal , the 
second the allegorical . And, as these two kinds 
of interpretation may exist together without con¬ 
tradiction, we can easily comprehend, that the 
same interpreter may display grammatical accuracy 
in the former, and yet fall into extravagancy in 
the employment of the latter. This was really the 
case with Origen. 

From what has been already stated it appears, 
that the use of allegorical interpretation is not 
confined to mere allegory, or fictitious narratives, 
but is extended also to history, or real narratives. 
And in this case the grammatical meaning of a 
passage is called its historical meaning, in contra? 
distinction to its allegorical meaning. Now there 
are two different modes, in which Scripture-history 
has been thus allegorized. According to one 
Z 


35 4 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

mode, facts and circumstances, especially those 
recorded in the Old Testament, have been applied 
to other facts and circumstances, of which they 
have been described as representative . According 
to the other mode, those facts and circumstances 
have been described as mere emblems . The 
former mode is warranted by the practice of the 
Sacred Writers themselves; for when facts and 
circumstances are so applied, they are applied as 
types of those things, to which the application is 
made. But the latter mode of allegorical inter¬ 
pretation has no such authority in its favour, 
though attempts have been made to procure such 
authority. For the same things are then described, 
not as types, or as real facts, hut as mere ideal 
representations, like the immediate representation 
in allegory. By this mode therefore is history 
not only treated as allegory, but converted into 
allegory: or, in other words, history is thus con¬ 
verted into fable . Now it is by artifices, like 
these, that the adversaries of Christianity have 
endeavoured to undermine the truth of Scripture 
History: and we have lately had a notable ex¬ 
ample in a distinguished writer of this country. 
Nor are these allegorical interpreters contented 
always with their own perversions; for some of 
them have attempted to enlist even St. Paul 
into the service of infidelity. They have en¬ 
deavoured to prove, that the Mosaic history is 


LECTURE V. 355 

mere allegonj , by appealing to that passage in 
the Epistle to the Galatians, where St. Paul, 
in reference to the history of the two sons of 
Abraham, says, 4 Which things are an Allegory 
Since then an Allegory is a picture of the 
imagination, or a fictitious narrative, they con¬ 
clude that St. Paul himself has warranted, by 
his own declaration, that mode of allegorical in¬ 
terpretation, which they themselves apply to the 
subversion of Scripture-history. 

If the pretext, which infidelity thus derives 
from the words of our authorised version , had 
been afforded also by the words of the original , 
we might have found it difficult to reply. But as 
soon as we have recourse to the words of the 
original , the fallacy of the appeal is visible at 
once. If St. Paul himself had been quoted, instead 
of the translators of St. Paul, it would have m- 
stantly appeared, that the Apostle did not apply, 
as is supposed by English readers, the title of 
allegory to any portion of the Mosaic history. 
The word 'AXAijyop'ia has never been used by 
St. Paul in any one instance throughout all his 
Epistles: nor indeed does it occur any where in 
the Greek Testament, nor even in the Greek 
version of the Old Testament. At the place in 
question, St. Paul did not pronounce the history 
itself an allegory: he declared only that it was 


356 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

allegorized . His own words are "Arti/a ea-nv 
aWrjyopovfieva , which have a very different mean¬ 
ing from the interpretation of them in our 
authorised version. It is one thing to say, that 
a history is allegorized: it is another thing to 
say, that it is allegory itself. If we only 
allegorize an historical narrative, we do not of 
necessity convert it into allegory. And though 
allegorical interpretation, when applied to history, 
may be applied, either so as to preserve , or so 
as to destroy its historical verity, yet when we 
use the verb 6 allegorize,’ as St. Paul has used 
it, the allegorical interpretation is manifestly of 
the former kind. Had he meant that the history 
was an allegory, he need not have allegorized it: 
an attempt to make a thing what it is already 
would indeed be no less absurd, than superfluous. 
In short, when St. Paul allegorized the history 
of the two sons of Abraham, and compared 
them with the two covenants, he did nothing 
more than represent the first as types , the latter 
as their antitypes. Though he treated that portion 
of the Mosaic history in the same manner as we 
treat an Allegory, he did not thereby convert it 
into Allegory. Though he instituted the same 
comparison which we institute in an Allegory 
between its immediate and its ultimate represen¬ 
tation, yet the subjects of St. Paul’s comparison 
did not thereby acquire the same character with 


LECTURE V. 


857 


the subjects of an Allegory. In the interpre¬ 
tation therefore of the Scriptures, it is essentially 
necessary, that we observe the exact boundaries 
between the notion of an Allegory and the 
notion of a Type. And it is the more necessary, 
as some of our own commentators, among others 
even Macknight, misled by the use of the 
term ‘ Allegory’ in our authorised version, have 
considered it as synonymous with Type. An 
Allegory, as already observed, is a fictitious 
narrative: a Type is something real. An Alle¬ 
gory is a picture of the imagination; a Type 
is an historic fact. It is true, that typical in¬ 
terpretation may in one sense be considered as 
a species of allegorical interpretation ; that they 
are so far alike, as being equally an interpretation 
of things; that they are equally founded on 
resemblance ; «tliat the type corresponds to its 
antitype , as the immediate representation in an 
Allegory corresponds to its ultimate representa¬ 
tion. Yet the quality of the things compared, 
as well as the purport of the comparison, is 
very different in the two cases. When, for 
instance, Joshua, leading the Israelites into the 
Holy Land, is described as a type of our Saviour 
leading his disciples into the kingdom of heaven; 
or when the sacrifice of the Passover is described 
as a type of the sacrifice of our Saviour on the 
cross; the subjects of reference have nothing 


35 8 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

similar to the subjects of an Allegory, though the 
comparison between them is the same. And 
though a type, in reference to its antitype, is 
called only a shadow, while the latter is called the 
substance, yet the use of these terms does not 
imply, that the former has less historical verity, 
than the latter. 

St. Paul therefore has afforded, neither by his 
language, nor by his arguments, the slightest 
pretext for that wildness of allegorical interpre¬ 
tation, which has been applied to the subversion 
of historical truth. The practice of converting 
into allegory the narratives of ancient authors was 
derived from a very different source. It origi¬ 
nated among the Greeks; and long before the 
birth of Christ. The work, on which this species 
of allegorical interpretation was first employed, 
was the Iliad of Homer: and a collection of alle¬ 
gorical expositions is still extant, which has been 
published under the title, Heraclidis Allegoric 
Homericce. It is true, that the actions ascribed 
to the heroes of the Iliad, cannot he regarded as 
real history; that they cannot be considered as 
a journal of events, which actually happened before 
the walls of Troy. But the author certainly meant, 
that they should assume the character of real 
events. For unless the descendants of those heroes 
could have supposed at least that they were read- 


LECTURE V. 


359 


ing the actions of their ancestors, the Iliad would 
never have become a national poem . There was 
nothing therefore in the character of those actions, 
at all resembling allegorical representation, a 
representation, which not only professes to be 
a picture of the imagination, but a picture intro¬ 
duced merely for the sake of another picture, 
that resembles it. Nor were the actions, ascribed 
even to the Deities of the Iliad, any other than 
such, as accorded with the superstition of the age* 
and to the original readers exceeded not the 
bounds of credibility. But when the savage man¬ 
ners of the ancient heroes became offensive to the 
polished Greeks of later ages, and the mythology 
of Homer became disgusting to those, who had 
been educated in the schools of Aristotle and 
Plato, the commentators on Homer had recourse 
to the expedient of allegorical interpretation. 
Unable to defend him by a literal exposition, 
yet unwilling to abandon a national author, 
whom the Greeks had ever holden in the highest 
veneration, his philosophic interpreters drew the 
veil of allegory over the actions of the Iliad, and 
represented them thus disguised, as the depo¬ 
sitories of sublime and mysterious truths. 

The example of the Greeks became infectious 
to the Jews, who, after the age of Alexander, 
were established among them in numerous colonies, 


360 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

especially in Egypt under the government of the 
Ptolemies. Hence they learnt, not only the lan¬ 
guage oi the Greeks, but their habits of thinking 
and reasoning. And, since Judaism appeared 
foolishness to the Greeks, as did afterwards Christ¬ 
ianity, the Jews themselves had the weakness and 
the impiety, to treat the writings of Moses as the 
Greeks had treated the writings of Homer. Thus 
they sacrificed the historic truths recorded by 
the divine lawgiver, and converted miracles into 
allegories, that Moses might appear in the garb 
of a Platonic philosopher. Philo of Alexandria, 
who wrote in the early part of the first century, 
has exhibited in numerous instances the Jewish 
mode of allegorizing the books of Moses. Edu¬ 
cated at Alexandria in the Platonic philosophy, 
he made this philosophy a rule for the interpre¬ 
tation of Scripture. If then the grammatical or 
historical meaning of a passage accorded not with 
the rule, a mystical meaning was sought to supply 
its place; and facts, which had been recorded by 
Moses as supernatural events, were transformed 
into ideal representations, supposed to have no 
other object, than to convey some religious mys¬ 
tery, or moral truth. The same mode of allegorical 
interpretation, as Philo himself relates, was em¬ 
ployed by the Therapeutae and the Essenes: and 
from the Jews it was transferred to the Christian 
Fathers. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 


-- 

LECTURE VI. 

When the early Fathers had adopted the 
mode of allegorical interpretation, which was de¬ 
scribed at the end of the last Lecture, they 
applied it to the defence of the Sacred Writings 
against the objections of the Greek philosophers. 
But however well-intentioned that application 
might have been, it was ill calculated to serve 
the cause of Christianity. For, instead of con¬ 
futing their adversaries by an argumentum ad 
judicium, they only silenced their adversaries by 
a retort of the argumentum ad hominem. Thus, 
when Celsus, the Epicurean philosopher, had 
objected to the Mosaic account of the Creation, 
the Temptation, and the Fall of Man, the answer 
of Origen, in his treatise against Celsus, was better 
adapted to a defeat of his immediate opponent, 
than to a permanent defence of the Bible. It 
was urged by Origen, that the narratives, to 
which Celsus had objected, should be explained 
allegorically: and he argued, that Celsus could 



362 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

not consistently reject this mode of interpretation, 
because it was employed by the Greek philoso¬ 
phers themselves. But, though truth is frequently 
conveyed in the form of an Allegory, the truth, 
which is thus conveyed, is moral , not historic 
truth. The narrative, which imparts the Moral, 
is itself fictitious . If therefore a narrative, pro¬ 
fessedly historical , be treated as a narrative purely 
allegorical , the history itself is thereby aban¬ 
doned . That some moral inference may still he 
drawn from it, is nothing to the purpose. Moral 
inferences are drawn from professed fables , which 
are themselves a kind of allegory. But their 
value is confined entirely to the application of 
them; whereas historic facts are recorded for 
their own sakes, and independently of any moral 
use, which may after wards be made of them. 
If we ascribe then the character of allegory to an 
historical narrative, we defeat the very purpose, 
for which the facts, contained in it, were recorded. 
Besides, if this treatment of an historical narra¬ 
tive is admissible in one case, it is admissible in 
others: and thus all history, both sacred and 
profane, may he diverted from its original intent. 
For nothing is more easy , than such a mode of 
treatment. We have only to look for some sort 
of resemblance between the fact, to which alle¬ 
gorical interpretation shall he applied, and some 
other fact (whether near or remote, is of little 


LECTURE VI. 


363 


consequence), and we obtain at once, upon these 
principles, the immediate and ultimate represen¬ 
tation of an Allegory: we have at once an alle¬ 
gorical, instead of an historical narrative. In 
this manner was the history of our Saviour and 
the twelve Apostles converted a few years ago by 
a French writer into a mere Allegory: and per¬ 
sons, whose existence is established by the strong¬ 
est of all possible evidence, were transformed into 
ideal representations of the Sun and the twelve 
signs of the Zodiac. By a similar process were 
the miracles of our Saviour converted into Alle¬ 
gories, in the former part of the last century, by 
a member of this very University. Indeed this 
writer imagined, that he had not only the ex¬ 
ample of the Fathers , but the example also of 
St. Paul in his favour. And since, according to 
the words of our authorised version , St. Paul had 
made an Allegory of one fact, he thought himself 
at liberty to make an Allegory of another . That 
St. Paul did not apply the title of Allegory to 
any historic fact, that he afforded not even a pre T 
text for this mode of allegorical interpretation, 
was fully proved in the last Lecture. But it 
would be difficult, if not impossible, to vindicate 
the conduct of the Fathers. Their mode of 
allegorizing Scripture was of a very different 
description from that, which was applied by 
St. Paul. For instead of applying historical facts, 


364 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

as types of other facts, by which the historical 
verity is preserved , they often apply them in such 
a manner, that the historical verity was destroy¬ 
ed . They often explained historical facts, as if 
real existence no more attached to them, than to 
the immediate representation of an Allegory. 

We have reason therefore to complain , that 
the early Fathers have afforded by their own con¬ 
duct a pretext to modern unbelievers for such a 
mode of allegorical interpretation. It is true, 
that a mode, which is indefensible in itself, can 
derive no real support from the practice of those, 
to whom authority no more attaches, than to any 
modern interpreter. And whatever confidence 
the Church of Rome may repose in the exposi¬ 
tions of her Fathers, we may hence learn, that 
such confidence is ill bestowed. Indeed the early 
Fathers, by their injudicious conduct in the in¬ 
terpretation of the Bible, not only affected many 
parts of its history, but placed the Bible itself 
in a very false and injurious light. Though they 
silenced, by the aid of Allegory, their immediate 
opponents, who argued on the same principles, 
yet the very circumstance, that principles, applied 
to the defence of the Heathen mythology , were 
applied also to the defence of the Bible , could 
produce no other effect, than that of degrading 
the latter to the level of the former. When a 


LECTURE VI. 


365 


passage of the Bible, conveying professedly an 
historical fact, was defended against the objections 
of the Heathens by resolving that passage into 
a mere Allegory, the veil, which was thus drawn 
over it, served only to present it in the same 
dress, in which the Heathens exhibited the fables 
of their Gods. The latter indeed had some ex¬ 
cise for their allegorical interpretations; they 
had reason for concealing under the veil of Alle¬ 
gory their ludicrous and indecorous legends. Hence 
Arnobius, in his treatise adversus Gentes, ad¬ 
dresses himself to a Heathen in the following 
manner: Istce omnes histories , quee tibi turpes 
videntur, atque ad labem pertinere divinam , mys- 
teria in se continent sancta, rationes miras atque 
alias , nec quas facile quivis posssit ingenii viva - 
citate pernoscere. Neque enim quod scriptum 
est, atque in prima est positum verborum fronte , 
id significatur et dicitur, sed allegoricis sensibus , 
et subditivis intelliguntur omnia ilia Secretis. 
But that Christian Commentators should in like 
manner have sought for allegorical senses and 
hidden meanings in the Bible , where the Sacred 
Writers have recorded the plain and simple words 
of Truth, of Truth which has no deformity to 
hide, and needs not the veil of Allegory, affords 
equal matter of surprise and of regret. 

Nor is this the only evil, which has arisen 


866 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

from such a treatment of Scripture. If the lite¬ 
ral or grammatical meaning of a passage may be 
exchanged at pleasure for an allegorical meaning, 
the meaning of Scripture will be involved in per¬ 
fect ambiguity: it will assume as many different 
forms, as the fancies of interpreters are multifa¬ 
rious. In grammatical interpretation, which is 
an interpretation of words , there are certain rules 
of interpretation, from which we cannot depart. 
But allegorical interpretation, which is an inter¬ 
pretation of things , is subjected to neither rule 
nor limit. As soon as an interpreter has learnt, 
what things are literally signified by the words 
of a passage, he has nothing else to do, than to 
let loose his imagination for the discovery of 
some other things, which may resemble the things 
literally signified, and then those other things 
will at once be allegorically signified. And since 
the same thing may to various interpreters sug¬ 
gest various resemblances, the same passage may 
have as many allegorical meanings, as there are 
persons , who undertake its interpretation. Hence 
Arnobius, in continuation of this subject, observes, 
Potest alius aliud, et argutius fingere } et veri 
cum similitudine suspicari. Potest aliud tertius; 
potest aliud quartus: atque, ut se tulerint inge- 
niorum opinantium qualitates , ita singulce res 
possunt infinitis interpretationibus explicari. Cum 
enim e rebus occlusis omnis ista, quce dicitur 


LECTURE VI. 


367 


Allegoria, sumatur , nec habeat finem cerium , 
in quo rei, quce dicitur , sit fixa atque immota 
sententia, unicuique liberum est in id, quo velit, 
attrahere lectionem , et affirmare id positum, in 
quod eum sua suspicia , et conjectura opinabilis 
duxerit. 

But, notwithstanding the numerous objections, 
to which this mode of interpretation is exposed, 
it has prevailed, more or less, in almost every age 
of Christianity. Indeed the very causes, which 
should have led to the rejection of it, are the 
causes which have operated in its favour. For 
though a mode of interpretation, which may be 
applied to any purpose, is really fit for no pur* 
pose, yet, if an interpreter has no other means of 
attaining his purpose, he finds it difficult to with¬ 
stand the temptation of employing what is always 
at hand for every purpose. The use, which was 
made of it by the early Fathers, and the advan¬ 
tage taken of their injudicious conduct, have been 
already explained. But allegorical interpretation, 
when once adopted, was not long confined to the 
controversies between the Greek Fathers and the 
Greek philosophers. It was soon discovered to 
he equally useful for controversy of every descrip¬ 
tion. And hence, if one opinion was supported 
by grammatical interpretation, a different opi¬ 
nion could be as easily supported by allegorical 


368 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

interpretation. But beside the motive of utility , 
there was something attractive in the thing itself. 
The imagination, delighting in allegory, is easily 
charmed into allegorical interpretation , while the 
dryness of grammatical interpretation is, in an 
equal degree, an object of its aversion. The 
former was recommended also by the facility of 
its application, while the exercise of the latter 
required, on the part of the interpreter, at least 
some share of knowledge and judgment. It is 
no wonder therefore, that in proportion as learn¬ 
ing declined , the passion for allegorical interpre¬ 
tation increased. And the use of grammatical 
interpretation having been proportionally dimi¬ 
nished in the Church of Home by the substi¬ 
tution of an authorised version for the original 
Scriptures, there at length arose, in the darkness 
of the middle ages, a race of Fanatics who re¬ 
jected grammatical interpretation altogether. They 
were distinguished in the twelfth century by the 
appellation of the Mystics , from their mystical 
mode of interpreting Scripture. These Mystics 
had an utter contempt for human reason, and 
human learning; they supposed themselves espe¬ 
cially guided by the Spirit; and hence they com¬ 
pensated, by a kind of spiritual interpretation, 
for that grammatical interpretation, which they 
had never learnt. At the same time, the Latin 
version of the New Testament, in the absence of 


LECTURE VI. 


369 


the Greek original, supplied them with an argu¬ 
ment for the rejection of literal or grammatical 
interpretation, and the adoption of spiritual or 
allegorical interpretation, which the original it¬ 
self does not supply. They appealed namely to 
that passage in St. Paul’s Second Epistle to 
the Corinthians, which in the Latin Vulgate is 
translated 6 lit era occidit, spiritus autem vivifi- 
catand in our own authorised version, 4 the 
letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.’ In this 
passage, the Mystics imagined that St. Paul was 
drawing a parallel between two different kinds of 
interpretation. Construing therefore ‘litera’ by 
* literal interpretation,’ and ‘ spiritus’ by ‘ spiri¬ 
tual interpretation,’ they inferred, that the Apos¬ 
tle had condemned the former, and recommended 
the exclusive employment of the latter. Now the 
Apostle, according to his own words, was draw¬ 
ing a parallel of a totally different description : 
a parallel, which had no concern whatever with 
interpretation. He was drawing a parallel be¬ 
tween the Law of Moses and the Gospel of 
Christ. The former does not afford the means of 
salvation: the latter does afford the means of 
salvation. This, and this only , is what St. Paul 
meant, when he said, that the one killeth , and 
that the other giveth life. It is true, that he 
applied the term Vpa^/ma to the former, the term 
Ilvev/uLa to the latter. But then he added expla- 
A A 


370 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

nations of those terms, which remove all ambi¬ 
guity. The Law of Moses he called as 

being A idKovla ev ypa/jLiuacri , as being A idKOv'ia evre- 
TU7rcofxevr] ev XiOois. The Gospel of Christ he called 
II ved/ixa, as being Aicucovla tov II vev/uaros ev 
Now, as these explanations are not only Greek 
explanations , but Greek explanations of Greek 
terms , they are absolutely incapable of being 
transfused into any version. They can be under¬ 
stood only, with reference to the words of the 
original. It is therefore impossible, that any one 
who expounds this passage from the words of a 
translation , should expound it in the sense of 
the Author. But as the Mystics , like other 
members of the Church of Rome , expounded from 
an authorised version, they fell into an error, 
which a knowledge of the original would have 
prevented. They fell into the error of suppos¬ 
ing, that literal or grammatical exposition not 
only might be, but ought to be discarded. And 
hence they acquired such a contempt for every 
thing not spiritual or allegorical, that the plain 
and literal meaning of a passage was regarded as 
a sort of husk , or chaff, fit only for the carnally- 
minded, and not suited to the taste of the godly. 

But whatever absurdities might result from 
their interpreting the New Testament without 
a knowledge of Greek, the Mystics were in no 


LECTURE VI. 


371 


danger of observing them. And in other respects 
the use of a translation was really advantageous. 
They could more easily bend it to their particular 
purpose: for, in the interpretation of Scripture, 
the words of a translation are always more pliant, 
than the words of the original. The obscurity , 
in which the sense of Scripture was thus involved, 
so far from being thought injurious, afforded them 
both pleasure and protection. Mystical inter¬ 
preters delight in obscurity: obscurity is their 
proper element. If a passage is obscure in itself, 
they are in less danger of being thwarted by 
a literal meaning. If they make it obscure, they 
obtain this advantage, that the greater the ob¬ 
stacles, which they can oppose to the judgement, 
the greater is the scope for the exercise of the 
fancy. This fancy has been equally indulged by 
the Mystics of every age; and however eccentric 
we may think the expositions displayed in the 
Area mystica, or Mystical Ark, of Richard of 
St. Victor, who flourished in the twelfth century, 
they have been fully equalled by the mystical ex¬ 
positions of these latter times. Nor is it by any 
means a matter of astonishment, that spiritual 
interpretation should recommend itself to our 
modern practitioners. No grammatical analysis, 
no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, no knowledge 
of antiquity, no knowledge of the situation and 
circumstances, either of the author, or of his 
a a 2 


372 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

original readers, is necessary for this purpose. 
Such knowledge is wanted only for grammatical 
interpretation. It is wanted only, when the 
words, which we interpret, are destined to perform 
the office, for which they were originally intended . 
It is wanted only, when the words, which we 
interpret, are considered, as signs to the reader 
of what was thought by the author. But the 
expounder, who regards them as passive instru¬ 
ments disposeable at his own will , and who em¬ 
ploys them, as machines for the conveyance of 
his own thoughts , is freed at, once from the 
shackles, which hind the grammatical interpreter, 
and is exempted from all other wants, than merely 
that of knowing what is best adapted to his own 
purpose, 

Men, who are little versed in the history of 
biblical interpretation, and have never witnessed 
the wonders , that are done by the aid of allegory, 
will be surprised perhaps to hear, that the Supre¬ 
macy of the Pope has been discovered in the first 
chapter of Genesis. The interpreter, who made 
this discovery, was himself a sovereign pontiff, 
and one, who exercised that supremacy with 
unlimited sway. It was Pope Innocent the 
Third; the same, who excommunicated King 
John of England, and who threatened even the 
Emperor of Constantinople. For this purpose he 


LECTURE VI. 


373 


addressed to him a Latin Epistle, in which he 
quoted from the first chapter of Genesis the 
passage relating to the two great lights, the 
greater light to rule the day, the lesser light 
to rule the night. By these two lights , said he, 
are meant the office of Pope and the office of 
King; by the greater light is meant the former 
office, by the lesser light the latter office; so 
that, as the light, which rules the day, is su¬ 
perior to the light, which rules the night, the 
dignity of Pope is superior to the dignity of 
King. Lest this interpretation should appear 
incredible, I will give the words of the original 
Epistle. Pope Innocent III. then, having quoted 
from the Latin Vulgate, Fecit Deus duo lumi- 
naria magna 3 luminare mcijus, ut prceesset diei, 
et luminare minus , ut prceesset nocti 3 subjoined 
the following interpretation; Id est 9 duas digni- 
tates instituit 3 quce sunt 3 Pontificalis Auctoritas, 
et Regalis Majestas. Sed ilia 3 quce prceest diebus 3 
id est spiritualibus 3 major est altera , quce noctibus, 
id est 9 carnalibus; ut quanta est inter Solem et 
Lunam 9 tanta inter Pontifices et Reges , diffe¬ 
rentia cognoscatur. Now this allegorical inter¬ 
pretation, absurd as it may appear, is not more 
absurd, than many, which are vented in the 
present age. It is however absurd enough: for 
the comparison is not only unwarranted, but is an 
actual inversion of the truth. The things spiritual , 


374 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

and the things carnal, to which reference is here 
made, should have changed their position; the 
luminaries should have been transposed. For 
spiritual dominion, whether exercised by the 
Pope, or by those who resemble him, is not a 
power, that rules the day, but a power, that rules 
the night. 

Let us now consider that kind of allegorical 
interpretation, which consists in the application 
of things, recorded in the Old Testament, to 
similar things recorded in the New Testament. 
That kind may be properly called typical inter¬ 
pretation ; for it is an application of types to 
their antitypes. It is warranted by the authority 
of the Sacred Writers themselves. But they 
have warranted the use of it only to a certain 
extent; and, if we transgress the limits, which 
they have prescribed, we shall be in perpetual 
danger of taking things for what they were not 
designed to be. To constitute one thing the 
type of another, as the term is generally under¬ 
stood in reference to Scripture, something more 
is wanted than mere resemblance. The former 
must not only resemble the latter, but must 
have been designed to resemble the latter. It 
must have been so designed in its original in¬ 
stitution. It must have been designed as some¬ 
thing preparatory to the latter. The type, as well 


LECTURE VI. 


375 


as the antitype, must have been pre-ordained; 
and they must have been pre-ordained, as con¬ 
stituent parts of the same general scheme of divine 
providence. It is this previous design , and this 
pre-ordained connexion , which constitute the 
relation of type and antitype. Where these 
qualities fail, where the previous design and the 
pre-ordained connexion are wanting, the relation 
between any two things, however similar in 
themselves , is not the relation of type to antitype . 
The existence therefore of that previous design 
and pre-ordained connexion must be clearly esta¬ 
blished , before we can have authority for pro¬ 
nouncing one thing the type of another. But 
we cannot establish the existence of that pre¬ 
vious design and pre-ordained connexion, by 
arguing only from the resemblance of the things 
compared. For the qualities and circumstances, 
attendant on one thing, may have a close re¬ 
semblance with the qualities and circumstances 
attendant on another thing, and yet the things 
themselves may be devoid of all connexion. How 
then, it may be asked, shall we obtain the proof 
required? By what means shall we determine, 
in any given instance, that what is alleged as 
a type was really designed for a type ? Now the 
only possible source of information on this subject 
is Scripture itself. The only possible means 
of knowing, that two distant, though similar. 


376 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

historic facts, where so connected in the general 
scheme of divine Providence, that the one was 
designed to pre-figure the other, is the authority 
of that Work, in which the scheme of divine 
Providence is unfolded. Destitute of that autho¬ 
rity, we may confound a resemblance, subsequently 
observed , with a resemblance pre-ordained: we 
may mistake a comparison, founded on a mere 
accidental parity of circumstances, for a com¬ 
parison, founded on a necessary and inherent 
connexion. There is no other rule, therefore, by 
which we can distinguish a real from a pretended 
type, than that of Scripture itself. There are no 
other possible means , by which we can know , that 
a previous design, and a pre-ordained connexion 
existed. Whatever persons, or things therefore, 
recorded in the Old Testament, were expressly 
declared by Christ, or by his Apostles, to have 
been designed as pre-figurations of persons nr 
things relating to the New Testament, such per¬ 
sons or things, so recorded in the former , are 
types of the persons or things, with which they 
are compared in the latter. But if we assert, 
that a person, or thing, was designed to pre-figure 
another person or thing, where no such pre-figu¬ 
ration has been declared by divine authority , we 
make an assertion, for which we neither have , nor 
can have, the slightest foundation. And even 
when comparisons are instituted in the New 


LECTURE VI. 


377 


Testament between antecedent and subsequent 
persons or things, we must be careful to distin¬ 
guish the examples, where a comparison is 
instituted merely for the sake of illustration , 
from the examples, where such a connexion is 
declared, as' exists in the relation of a type to 
its antitype. 

The consequences of neglecting the precautions 
here proposed are sufficiently apparent in the 
history of typical interpretation. Volumes have 
been filled with types and antitypes, which exist 
only in the fancy of the writers. Men of lively 
imagination are continually at work for the dis¬ 
covery of resemblances , while judgment and eru¬ 
dition are not always at hand, to suggest the 
differences. Things really discordant are thus 
supposed to be consonant: and they are united on 
the ground of similarity , when their difference 
should have led to a separation. But, when once 
they are brought together, however fanciful their 
resemblance, it is but a small additional effort of 
the imagination, to perceive in the one a symbol 
of the other. And the things, when thus sym¬ 
bolized, find an easy transition into types and 
antitypes. Suppose however, that the resemblance 
between the things themselves would bear the 
strictest inquiry , yet if the inference be drawn 
without a proof of previous design and pre-ordained 


378 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

connexion, we may still multiply our types and 
antitypes without end. Even the self-same type 
may be provided with various antitypes, according 
to the different views of the interpreters. For 
the discovery of types and antitypes is often de¬ 
termined by the religious party, to which the 
interpreter belongs, or by the peculiar sentiments , 
which the interpreter entertains. Thus Cardinal 
Bellarmine, in his treatise De Laicis , discovered, 
that the secession of the Protestants under Luther 
was typified by the secession of the Ten Tribes 
under Jeroboam; while the Lutherans with equal 
reason retorted, that Jeroboam was a type of the 
Pope, and that the secession of Israel from Judah 
typified, not the secession of the Protestants under 
Luther, hut the secession of the Church of Rome 
from primitive Christianity. But to whichever of 
the two events the secession under Jeroboam may 
be supposed the most similar , (if similarity exists 
there at all beyond the mere act of secession) we 
have no authority for pronouncing it a type of 
either. We have no proof of previous design, 
and of pre-ordained connexion between the sub¬ 
jects of comparison: we have no proof that the 
secession of the Israelites under Jeroboam was 
designed to pre-figure any other secession what¬ 
ever. This single example is sufficient to shew 
what abuse may be made of typical interpretation: 
and, though examples might he easily multiplied, 


LECTURE VI. 


379 


by quotations from various authors, the precautions 
already given will serve to secure us from error, 
without further inquiry into the errors of others. 

The subject of allegorical and typical inter¬ 
pretation having been thus concluded, our next 
inquiry must be directed to the interpretation of 
prophecy. For the interpretation of prophecy is 
so far connected with typical interpretation, as 
types are prophetic of their antitypes. But the 
interpretation of prophecy opens such a field of 
investigation, and involves so many important 
considerations, that it must be made a subject 
of special inquiry. 



INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 


LECTURE VII. 

As we proceeded in the last Lecture from the 
interpretation of allegory to the interpretation of 
types, so we may now proceed from the interpreta¬ 
tion of types to the interpretation of prophecy. 
There is indeed a natural connexion between the 
one and the other: for since a type is not an 
accidental , hut a designed prefiguration of its 
antitype, it is virtually a prediction of its 
antitype. Nor is the resemblance between types 
and prophecy confined to the things themselves; 
it extends also to the principles , by which they 
must be interpreted. The principles, which ap¬ 
ply to the interpretation of types, having been 
already explained, it is unnecessary to repeat 
them in detail: but it will be proper to take 
a general view of them, that the analogy of the 
former to the present subject may be distinctly 


LECTURE VII. 


381 


To constitute a type, something more is re¬ 
quisite, than a mere resemblance of that, which 
is called its antitype- For one thing may resemble 
another, when the things themselves are totally 
unconnected. But it is the very essence of a type, 
to have a necessary connexion with its antitype. 
It must have been designed , and designed from 
the very beginning, to prefigure its antitype; or 
it partakes not of that character, which belongs 
to a real type; a character, which implies, not an 
accidental parity of circumstances, but a pre-or¬ 
dained and inherent connexion between the things 
themselves. Where this character is wanting, 
there is wanting that relation of type to antitype, 
which subsists between the things of the Old 
Testament, and the things of the New. And 
the only mode of distinguishing the cases, where 
this relation actually exists, from the cases where 
it is only supposed to exist, is to examine what 
things in the Old Testament have been repre¬ 
sented by Christ and his Apostles, as relating 
to things in the New. For then we have 
authority for such relation : then we know , that 
one thing was designed to prefigure the other. 
But without such authority, it is absolutely im¬ 
possible , that we should obtain the knowledge, 
which is necessary on this subject. There are no 
human means, by which we can discover, that what 
lias happened at one period, or in one nation, was 


382 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 


originally intended to point out something similar, 
which should happen at another period, or in 
another nation. The reality of such previous 
design, the reality of a fore-ordained connexion 
between a type and its antitype, must depend 
therefore entirely on the authority of Christ and 
his Apostles. 

Having ascertained the mode, by which alone 
we can discover the existence of a type, we may in 
the next place consider its prophetic character. 
When two apparently independent events, distant 
from each other many hundreds, or even some 
thousands of years, are so connected in the general 
scheme of Divine Providence, that the one was 
designed to indicate the other, the one is no less 
prophetic of the other, than a verbal declaration, 
that the thing, which forms the antitype, would in 
due season be accomplished. Whether a future 
event is indicated by words , or indicated by other 
tokens, the connexion of that event with the words 
in the one case, or the tokens in the other, will be 
equally a fulfilling of prophecy. We cannot have 
a more remarkable, or a more important example, 
than that of the paschal lamb, as applied to the 
death of Christ. For not only was the paschal 
lamb sacrificed for the sins of the Jews under cir¬ 
cumstances resembling those, under which our 
Saviour was sacrificed for the sins of the world, 


LECTURE VII. 


383 


but we have tlie authority of Scripture itself 
for the assertion, that the sacrifice of the paschal 
lamb was from the very beginning designed to 
indicate the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. 
When John the Baptist first saw our Saviour, 
he exclaimed, 4 Behold the Lamb of God, which 
taketh away the sins of the world.’ St. Paul is 
still more particular: for he says, Christ, 4 our 
passover is sacrificed for usand St. Peter de¬ 
clares, that we were redeemed 4 with the precious 
4 blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish 
4 and without spot, who verily was fore-ordained, 
4 before the foundation of the world.’ From a 
comparison of these passages we learn, not only 
that the two sacrifices resembled each other, but 
that the sacrifice of the paschal lamb was 
originally intended , to designate the sacrifice of 
Christ. The former sacrifice therefore has all the 
qualifications, which are necessary to constitute 
a type. And since the Sacrament of the Lord’s 
Supper was instituted by Christ himself in re¬ 
membrance of his death and passion, the cere¬ 
mony, which was a type of the one, may be 
considered as a type also of the other. 

Again, as the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, 
by prefiguring the death of Christ, has reference 
to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, so the 
Sacrament of Baptism was likewise prefigured by 


384 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

an event of great importance in the history of 
the 'Jews. St. Paul, in his first Epistle to the 
Corinthians, (x. 1.) says, 4 Brethren, I would not 

* that ye should be ignorant, how that our fathers 

* were under the cloud, and all passed through 
‘ the sea, and were baptized unto Moses in the 
‘ cloud, and in the sea : and did all eat the same 
‘ spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spi- 
‘ ritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual 
‘ Rock, that followed them, and that Rock was 
‘ Christ.’ In this passage it is evident, that St. 
Paul considered the being baptized unto Moses, 
as typical of being baptized unto Christ. The 
Jews, who admitted proselytes by baptism, appear 
to have generally considered the passage of their 
forefathers through the Red Sea, not as a mere 
insulated historical fact, but as something repre¬ 
sentative of admission to the divine favour by 
baptism. They said, that 4 they were baptized in 
‘ the desert, and admitted into covenant with 
‘ God before the law was given.’ (See Whitby 
in loc.) On the authority of St. Paul the Church 
of England also considers that event as a type 
of baptism : for in the baptismal services we pray 
in the following words, f Almighty and everlast- 

* ing God, who —didst safely lead the children of 
‘ Israel thy people through the Red Sea, figuring 
‘ thereby thy holy Baptism.’ The circumstances 
also, which attended the type, accord with the 


LECTURE VII. 


385 


circumstances attending the antitype. When the 
followers of Moses, having forsaken Egypt, passed 
through the Red Sea, in their progress to the 
Holy Land, that passage was to them an entrance, 
not only into a new temporal, but into a new 
spiritual state. In like manner, the followers of 
Christ , when they have forsaken sin, and passed 
through the laver of baptism, on their progress 
to the kingdom of heaven, have also entered into 
a new spiritual state. 4 Know ye not (saith St. 

4 Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, vi. 3.) that 
4 so many of us as were baptized unto Jesus 
4 Christ, were baptized unto his death?’—and 
therefore that we ‘should walk in newness of 
life?’ 4 As many of you (saith St. Paul again in 
4 his Epistle to the Galatians, iii. 27.) as have 
4 been baptized unto Christ, have put on Christ.’ 
And when he gave an account of his own con¬ 
version, in the speech which he made to the 
Jews of Jerusalem, he used the following words, 
which, though addressed to him by Ananias, he 
sanctions by his own repetition of them. ‘Arise 
4 and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, call¬ 
ing on the name of the Lord.’ (Acts xxii. 16.) 
And this washing away of sin, in the sacra¬ 
ment of Baptism, the same Apostle in his 
Epistle to Titus (iii. 6.) has called 4 the washing 
4 of regeneration .’ Here then we have another 
instance of type and antitype, ratified by the 
B B 


386 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

authority of a divine Apostle, in all their various 
relations. 

Resting on such divine authority, the Church 
of England has adopted this example with all the 
circumstances, which are warranted by St. Paul: 
and since in this particular instance our Church 
has been lately subjected to severe and unme¬ 
rited censure, the occasion requires a few addi¬ 
tional remarks in its defence. Our twenty- 
seventh Article declares, that ‘Baptism is not 
‘ only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, 
‘ whereby Christian men are distinguished from 
‘ others, that are not christened, but it is also 
4 a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby 
‘ as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism 
■ rightly, are grafted into the Church, the pro- 
* mises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption 
'• to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are 
‘ visibly signed and sealed.’ In the several ser¬ 
vices for Baptism, as also in the service for 
Confirmation, Regeneration is represented as an 
essential part of Baptism. It is the inward 
grace of that, of which water is the outward 
sign. Nothing can be clearer on this subject 
than our Catechism, which expressly declares, 
that whereas the outward visible sign in Bap¬ 
tism is ‘Water wherein the person is baptized,’ 
so the inward spiritual grace, is ‘a death unto 


LECTURE VII. 387 

sin, and a new birth unto righteousness If 
then we detach regeneration from baptism, we 
not only fall into the absurdity of making the 
outward act a visible sign of nothing to be signi- 
Jied , but we destroy the Sacrament of Baptism 
as a Sacrament, altogether. It is essential to a 
Sacrament, that the outward act he accompanied 
with an inward grace. If Baptism therefore, as 
some pretend, is nothing more, than ‘ an outward 
‘ work of man upon the body,’ it is a perfect 
mockery of religion to retain it as a ceremony in 
our Church: for if such only be Baptism, it has 
no more to do with the concerns of religion than 
the common ablutions of domestic life. Vain is 
the pretence of those, who assert, that we imitate 
the Church of Rome, in believing, that grace is 
conferred at baptism merely ex opere operato, (as 
it is called in the Canons of the Council of 
Trent.) The grace of God accompanies the out¬ 
ward act: but the outward act is not the efficient 
cause of it. The twenty-seventh Article com¬ 
pares indeed Baptism with an instrument, by 
which the promises of God to forgive our sins 
are visibly signed and sealed. But, not to men¬ 
tion, that in every legal instrument the signing 
and the sealing is accompanied with the decla¬ 
ration of its being our own act and deed, and 
that this mental assent is the thing, which gives 
force to the signature and the seal, the compari- 
b n 2 


388 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

son in question is limited by the very words of 
the Article to those, who ‘ receive Baptism right¬ 
ly? And Baptism, according to the general 
rules of our Church, is not received rightly, un¬ 
less, either by ourselves or by our sureties, we 
make professions of Repentance and Faith. 
‘ What is required (says our Catechism) of per- 

* sons to be baptized ? Repentance, whereby they 

* forsake sin; and Faith, whereby they stedfastly 
‘ believe the promises of God made to them in 

* that Sacrament.’ Conformably with this doc¬ 
trine of our Catechism, godfathers and godmo¬ 
thers, in the name of the child to be baptized, 
make a public declaration, before the baptism 
itself is administered, that they renounce sin, and 
believe in the promises of God. And whereas 
these previous declarations are made by the god¬ 
fathers and godmothers at the public baptism of 
infants, the same previous declarations are made 
by the parties themselves, in the ministration of 
baptism to such as are of riper years. In the 
exhortation also to this service, the Priest says, 

‘ Doubt ye not, therefore, but earnestly believe, that 

* he will favourably receive these present persons, 

‘ truly repenting , and coming to him by faith? 
Repentance and Faith, therefore, expressed either 
by ourselves or by our sureties, are the causes 
which operate in producing that spiritual grace, 
which is conferred at baptism. Thus St. Paul,. 


LECTURE VII. 


389 


when he spake of washing away sins at baptism, 
spake at the same time of 4 calling on the name 
of the Lord/ But how under such circumstances 
can we call on the name of the Lord, except by 
professions of repentance and faith ? * In like 
manner, when we receive the Sacrament of the 
Lord’s Supper, it is not the bread, which we eat, 
nor the wine which we drink, any more than the 
water, which is used in baptism, which confers 
the spiritual grace, but the repentance and faith, 
which accompany the eating of the bread and 
the drinking of the wine. Our Articles are very 
clear and precise on this subject. The twenty- 
eighth Article says, 4 To such as rightly, worthily 


* If it be objected, that in the short service, which our 
Church has provided for the private baptism of infants, there 
are no expressions of faith and repentance* though by our 
Catechism they are required of persons to be baptized, we 
may answer, that we seldom meet with a general rule, with¬ 
out some exception for extreme cases. In the words of the 
rubric, this short service is to be used only f when need shall 
compeland if the child lives, it must afterwards be 
brought to Church, when the same professions of repentance 
and faith are made as in the other services. These professions 
therefore are only deferred, and deferred from the urgency 
of the case. On the other hand, if the child dies, we trust 
that the Almighty takes the will for the deed, since the 
intended professions of faith and repentance would have been 
carried into effect, if the opportunity had been afforded by 
the life of the child being spared. 



390 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

4 and with faith receive the same, the Bread, 

4 which we break, is a partaking of the Body of 
4 Christ: and likewise the cup of blessing is a 
4 partaking of the blood of Christ/ On the 
other hand, says the twenty-ninth Article, 4 The 
4 wicked , and such as he void of a lively faith , 

4 although they do carnally and visibly press with 
4 their teeth the Sacrament of the body and blood 
4 of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers 
4 of Christ.’ The relation therefore both of the 
outward sign to the inward grace, and of the 
inward grace to that which is required to obtain 
it, is so distinctly marked, that one should hardly 
suppose it possible to mistake the meaning of our 
Articles. There is an act of the mind, and there 
is an external token of it: for every act of the 
mind must have some external token. But nei¬ 
ther here nor in other cases does the real virtue 
of the act consist in the token. Each of our 
Sacraments has its own external token: but in 
both of them are the acts of the mind acknow¬ 
ledgements of Repentance and Faith. Unless 
therefore it is superstition to believe, that the 
grace of God accompanies Repentance and Faith, 
there is no superstition in believing, that the grace * 
of God accompanies, as ‘well the Sacrament of 
Baptism, as the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. 
And since that pecidiar grace, which is called 
Regeneration , is a grace, which is conferred on 


LECTURE VII. 


391 


us only once in our lives, (for it is a different 
thing from renovation) the Sacrament, which we 
receive only once in our lives, and which then 
admits us to the Christian Covenant , would ap¬ 
pear to be the appointed means of conferring 
that grace, even if St. Paul had not declared it. 
But that St. Paul has declared it cannot admit 
a doubt. Unless Regeneration had belonged to 
Baptism, the Apostle would not have called the 
act of Baptism * the washing of Regeneration/ 
or the laver of Baptism ‘the laver of Regenera¬ 
tion.’ For there is nothing beside Baptism, to 
which the term ‘ washing/ or rather the term 
e laver/ which is a better translation, can possibly 
apply. It is strange therefore, that such efforts 
should now be made to detach Regeneration from 
Baptism; though we must acknowledge, that in 
the estimation of those, who make such efforts, 
the separation is highly useful. For, as soon as 
Regeneration is detached from Baptism , it may 
be employed on other occasions: it may he made 
the instrument of conversion at a later age: and 
thus the pangs of the new birth may become 
tokens of admission to that holy state, which the 
converts are taught to expect in vain from a 
Sacrament deprived of its spiritual grace. But 
strange as this doctrine may appear, it is yet 
more strange, that men should detach Regeneration 
from Baptism, and still pretend to be Church - 


392 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

men. There is no possible artifice , by which the 
words of our baptismal services can be distorted 
from their real meaning. In the words of our 
Public Baptism of Infants, the Priest thus ad¬ 
dresses the congregation, immediately after the 
baptism is completed. 4 Seeing now, dearly be- 
4 loved brethren, that this child is by baptism 
4 regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ’s 
‘ Church, &c.’ And the thanksgiving, which 
immediately follows, begins thus, 6 We yield 
4 thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, 
* that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this 
4 infant with thy Holy Spirit.’ Unless there¬ 
fore the expression ‘ it hath pleased God to rege¬ 
nerate’ is synonymous with the expression ‘it 
shall please God to regenerate,’ unless the past 
is the same with the future , it is impossible to 
deny, that they, who wilfully and deliberately 
detach regeneration from baptism, impugn essen¬ 
tially the doctrine of our established Church, 
inasmuch as they impugn it in one of our Holy 
Sacraments *. 


* As it is impossible to explain away the strong expres¬ 
sions, which have been here quoted, an attempt of another 
kind has been made, namely, to shew that they are incon¬ 
sistent with a prayer in the former part of the service, which 
contains the following passage: f We call upon thee for this 
' infant, that he coming to thy holy Baptism, may receive 

‘ remission 



LECTURE Vll. 


393 


Having thus illustrated two very remarkable 
types of the Old Testament, the one applying to 
the Sacrament of Baptism, the other to the Sacra¬ 
ment of the Lord’s Supper, we may now proceed 
with that analogy , which subsists between the 
interpretation of types and the interpretation of 
prophecy. Whatever he the mode , in which a pro¬ 
phecy is conveyed, whether it he conveyed by 
words , or conveyed by things , the connexion be¬ 
tween that conveyance, and the event in which we 
seek the completion, must be clearly established, 
or the very existence of the prophecy will remain 
unproved. But it appears from the arguments 
already used, that an event in the history of the 
Jews, or a ceremony performed in the temple of 
Jerusalem, cannot be regarded as typical, and con¬ 
sequently not as prophetical of any rite performed 
in the Church of Christ, unless it was determined 
by the Deity, that such event should happen, or 
such ceremony be instituted, with a view to what 


f remission of his sins by spiritual regeneration/ But there is 
no inconsistency in believing, that what was only a subject of 
prayer at the commencement of the service, was a grace 
already obtained at the close of the service. The grace con¬ 
ferred at Baptism is the effect of Repentance and Faith: and 
the professions of Repentance and Faith are made after the 
prayer for regeneration, but before the declaration, that the 
child is regenerate. The prayer therefore, and the declaration, 
are perfectly consistent. 



394 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

the Deity foresaw would take place in later ages. 
Where no such connexion exists between & former 
event or ceremony, and a later event or ceremony, 
the former can in no wise he considered as typical, 
and consequently not as prophetical , of the latter. 
The histories of Greece and Rome afford various 
examples of events at one period, which resemble 
the events of.another period. But we do not 
therefore regard them as types and antitypes. 
And why do we not regard them as such? 
Because we perceive no connexion between them: 
because we perceive nothing more than, that the 
things are similar: because we have no evidence , 
that in the general scheme of Divine Providence, 
the one was intended to represent the other. 
This evidence can be afforded only by revelation: 
and therefore we never seek for types and anti¬ 
types except in the Sacred Writings. But then, 
for this very reason we must make the Sacred 
Writings the basis, and the sole basis, on which 
we build our theories of types, and typical 
prophecy. We have therefore no warrant to 
conclude, that the events or ceremonies of one 
period were designed by the Deity to be typical, 
and therefore prophetical, of the events or 
ceremonies of another period, unless (as in the 
two examples which I selected as an illustration 
of types) Revelation itself has declared them to 
be such. 


LECTURE VII. 


395 


It has indeed been objected by the advocates of 
a more extensive scheme, that an explanation of 
types in the Bible itself is in general not to be 
expected. It has been urged that, their very 
nature requires obscurity and concealment: and 
consequently that an explanation of them would 
be inconsistent with their original design. But 
the explanation, for which we must have re¬ 
course to Scripture, is not an explanation to be 
sought in the Old Testament, or an explanation 
accompanying the type. It is an explanation to 
be sought in the New Testament, or an expla¬ 
nation accompanying the antitype. That such 
explanations, in various instances, are given in 
the New Testament, no one can deny. Who, 
for instance, would deny that the sacrifice of the 
paschal lamb is declared in the New Testament 
to be a prefiguration of the death of Christ. 
And if it was deemed necessary to explain one 
type, where could be the expediency, or the 
moral fitness, of withholding the explanation of 
others? Must not therefore the silence of the 
New Testament, in the case of any supposed 
type, be an argument against the existence of 
that type? If it was agreeable to the design of 
typical representation, that they, to whom the 
type was originally given, should remain ignorant 
of its real tendency, or of the thing, which it 
w'as meant to prefigure , it must have been 


396 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

agreeable to the same design, that, as soon as 
the prefigured antitype had taken place , its re¬ 
lation to the type should he clearly revealed. 
The observance of a type is superseded by the 
accomplishment of the antitype. It is necessary 
therefore that we should know the exact period 
of that accomplishment: or we shall know not 
the period, when the observance of the type 
should cease. Whatever advantage therefore the 
Jews might have derived from their remaining in 
ignorance, that certain ceremonies performed in 
the temple of Jerusalem were only shadows of 
better things to come, yet when those better things 
were come, it was of the highest importance, that 
the mystery should be removed, and the types 
explained. But revelation alone could give the 
explanation. For that one thing was designed to 
prefigure another, can be known only to Him 
who designed it, and to those, to whom he has 
vouchsafed to reveal it. 

When we proceed to the interpretation of 
prophecies delivered in words , we shall find no 
less caution necessary, than in the interpretation 
of prophecies delivered by things. We must not 
imagine that in every instance, where the words 
of a Hebrew prophet appear to bear some re¬ 
semblance , or to be applicable to events which 
are passing in the present age, they were there- 


LECTURE VII. 


397 


fore designed to be predictions of those events. If 
we argue from mere similarity , without taking 
other things into consideration, the consequence 
will be, that wherever the meaning of a passage 
is in itself sufficiently general to admit of more 
applications than one, various interpreters will 
compare it with various events, and they will 

all declare, that the passage is a prophecy of 
that particular event, to which they themselves 
a Pply it. Indeed we know by experience, that 
passages in the writings of the Hebrew pro¬ 
phets have been applied to as many different 

events, as the interpreters themselves are numerous. 
Yet each interpreter is confident of his own expla¬ 
nation : and is persuaded that all other inter¬ 
preters are mistaken. In this manner is the sure 
word of prophecy, as St. Peter very justly calls 
it, exposed to suspicion, on the part of those, 

who are inclined to question the truth of our 
holy religion. 

But though the difficulties attending the inter¬ 
pretation of the Hebrew prophets are confessedly 
great, those difficulties are not insurmountable. 
And if the interpretation of prophecy is really 
subject to determinate rules, the conclusions, to 
which such rules must eventually lead, will be no 
less certain, when those difficulties are overcome, 
than if they had never existed. The sole difference 


398 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

consists in the labour, in the skill, and in the time, 
which are wanted in the one case, but not in the 
other. If it be objected therefore, that the sacred 
oracles are ambiguous, because the explanations of 
them are various, we may confidently answer, that 
the fault is in the interpretation, and not in the 
text. It is no wonder that in the explanations of 
the Hebrew prophets we should discover incon¬ 
sistency, when an office, for which so many qualifi¬ 
cations are required, is undertaken by men, in 
whom those qualifications are wanting altogether. 

In the first place, it is impossible to enter into 
the true spirit of Hebrew prophecy, without a 
knowledge of the Hebrew language. The style of 
history is for the most part, so plain and simple, 
that a narrative of events delivered in one language 
may be adequately expressed in other languages. 
The same observation applies to the didactic parts 
of Scripture: the rules, which are necessary for 
the guidance of our own conduct, requiring of 
themselves so much plainness and perspicuity, as 
to he equally expressible in every language. But 
the prophetic style of Scripture is of so peculiar 
a kind, that it is always difficult, and sometimes 
impossible to express in English what is expressed 
in Hebrew. Even in poetry, which is more easily 
rendered than prophecy, it is no easy task to 
transfer the spirit of the original into the words 


LECTURE VII. 


399 


of a translation. Words in one language may 
have a literal correspondence to words in another 
language; while they are incapable of being em¬ 
ployed in the same figurative sense. The usage 
of the two languages, which alone can determine 
the meaning of words, "may be alike in one 
respect and different in another. But, if the 
words of a translation convey only a literal sense, 
where the words of the original convey a figura¬ 
tive sense, the words of the author and the 
words of the translator will convey two different 
senses. Hence the same prophecy may be differ¬ 
ently understood, according as it .is interpreted 
from the words of the original, or interpreted 
from the words of a translation. Now the style 
of prophecy would in any language be more 
figurative than that of history: and in Hebrew 
prophecy it is so much the more figurative, as 
the oriental languages themselves more abound 
in metaphor, than the languages of Greece and 
Rome. 

Another cause of difference in the interpretation 
of Hebrew prophecy is, that while one interpreter 
considers the situation and circumstances of the 
writer whose works he explains, another interpreter 
expounds without the least regard for what is 
necessary to be known, in order to discover his 
author’s meaning. Hebrew writers, who lived at 


400 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

different periods, from five hundred to fifteen 
hundred years before the birth of Christ, are all 
viewed in the self-same light: and the light, in 
which they are thus viewed, is moreover the light, 
in which the language of the translator would be 
viewed, if that language were the language of the 
author. Hence the notions, which the Hebrew 
writers affixed to their own words, are exchanged 
for notions, which the interpreter, differently cir¬ 
cumstanced, affixes to the words of a translation. 
Again, while one interpreter investigates the words 
of his author with grammatical precision, and at¬ 
tempts only to discover what the words themselves 
convey, another interpreter, either regardless or 
incapable of grammatical analysis, employs his 
ingenuity in torturing the words of his author, or 
rather of his author’s translator, till he has 
brought them to speak, what he had previously 
determined, that they should speak. 

Since then so many causes are incessantly 
operating to produce variety in the interpretation 
of prophecy, we need not wonder, if the effects 
correspond with the causes. But the very con¬ 
sideration of those causes is sufficient to remove 
the charge of ambiguity from the sacred text, and 
to fix it, where it belongs, in the interpretations 
alone. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 


-—- 

LECTURE VIII. 

Having examined the causes , which produce 
the variety observable in the expositions of He¬ 
brew prophecy, we might in the next place inquire, 
whether it is not possible to assign such rules of 
interpretation, as may be the means of greater 
harmony in our commentaries on that subject. 
But the general rules for the interpretation of the 
Bible, which have been fully explained in former 
Lectures, are applicable, as well to the prophetic 
books, as to other parts of the sacred volume. 
For in every instance we must consider the words, 
which we interpret, as signs to the reader of what 
was thought by the author. 

There is indeed one distinction to be made 
between the interpretation of prophecy, and the 
interpretation of history: a distinction founded 
on a difference of inspiration. The inspiration 
of prophecy must be different from that, which 
would at least be sufficient for the inspiration of 
Cc 



402 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

history. If an historian records events, which 
have either come within his own knowledge, or 
of which he has the means of obtaining correct 
information, he cannot want that kind of inspi¬ 
ration, which is called an inspiration of sugges¬ 
tion . And exemption from error is in such cases 
sufficiently secured, if the Holy Spirit, while it 
leaves the historian to act for himself, as long as 
the record is true, is ready to interpose, whenever 
there is danger of a deviation from the truth. 
But widely different is the case of prophecy. An 
inspiration of suggestion is there absolutely neces¬ 
sary: for it lies not within the power of unas¬ 
sisted man to discover what persons will be born, 
or what transactions will take place, after a lapse 
of some hundreds of years. It is true, that our 
own reason enables us to argue from the past to 
the future. A comparison of causes with their 
consequences at a former period may warrant the 
conclusion, that a recurrence of the same causes 
will probably lead to a recurrence of the same 
consequences. And when those causes actually 
have recurred, we may predict with some proba¬ 
bility, that the time is not far distant, when also 
the consequences will recur. If, for instance, we 
compare the present situation of our Church with 
its situation at a former period, we must have our 
apprehensions, and perhaps our forebodings. But 
such forebodings are very different from that 


LECTURE VIII. 


403 


knowledge, which enables men to foresee, not 
merely the consequences of causes now operating, 
hut such distant events, as are wholly unconnected 
with any thing, which is passing in the present 
age. When, for instance, Isaiah foretold the 
coming of Christ, he foretold not only a very 
distant event, but an event, to which he could 
not possibly argue from the state of the Jews, 
at the time, when he wrote. A foreknowledge of 
such events can be obtained by no other means, 
than by an immediate communication from God 
himself. 

Let us apply then the principles of interpreta¬ 
tion, as explained in a former Lecture, to the two 
different cases of history and prophecy. When 
we interpret the words of a sacred historian, and 
consider those words, as signs to the reader of 
what was thought by the author, we may regard 
the historian himself as the author. But when 
we interpret a prophecy , we must distinguish be¬ 
tween the author , and the writer. For when the 
knowledge of the writer is communicated to him 
by an immediate suggestion of the Holy Spirit, 
we must consider the Holy Spirit , as the author 
of that knowledge, which the prophet, as a writer, 
communicates to the reader. But then this 
knowledge might be communicated to the pro¬ 
phet in two different ways, either of which lay 
c c 2 


404 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

within the reach of Almighty power. The un¬ 
derstanding of the prophet might he opened in 
a supernatural manner, so as to give him an 
insight into future events, while the record of 
those events, or the mode of committing them to 
writing , was left entirely to himself. In this 
case, though the prophecy has the Holy Spirit 
for its author, yet the words of the prophecy 
are the words of the prophet. And if the pro¬ 
phet was the author of the words, those words 
must be signs to us of what was thought by the 
prophet. On the other hand, the words also, as 
well as the things signified by the words, might 
have been communicated to the prophet. In this 
case he was the mere instrument of communica¬ 
tion to the reader; and the Holy Spirit must 
then be regarded as the author, as well with 
respect to the words , as with respect to the 
things. But whether the words were chosen by 
the prophet, or chosen by the Holy Spirit, the 
principle , on which they were chosen, must in 
either case have been the same. In either case, 
the choice of them must have depended on the 
connexion, which the usage of the Hebrew lan¬ 
guage had established between words , and the 
things signified by those words. If they had not 
been so chosen, they could not have been signs 
to the reader of what was thought by the author , 
whether we refer them to the prophet, or refer 


LECTURE VIII. 


405 


them to the Holy Spirit. Whoever was the 
author of a passage, which we propose to inter¬ 
pret, we must conclude, that he used his words 
in such senses, as he supposed would be ascribed 
to them by his readers. For if he used them in 
other senses, he would not inform, but mislead. 
Consequently, whether we interpret prophecy, on 
the supposition that the words were chosen by the 
prophet, or interpret prophecy on the supposition 
that the words were chosen by the Holy Spirit , 
we must on either supposition apply the same 
7'ides of interpretation. 

After these general remarks on the interpre¬ 
tation of prophecy, let us proceed to the particular 
consideration of the prophecies, which relate to 
the Messiah. Various reasons may he assigned 
for selecting these prophecies, as subjects of our 
special attention. In the first place, they are 
more important , than all other prophecies put 
together. Whether we can discover in the writ¬ 
ings of the Hebrew prophets a description of the 
events which are passing in the present age, is 
a question of little moment. But the prophecies 
relating to the Messiah are of such importance, 
that they affect the very truth of our religion. 
And in the next place, an inquiry into those pro¬ 
phecies includes the consideration of almost every 
thing which relates to prophecy in general. It 


406 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

includes the questions of primary senses, and se¬ 
condary senses, of prophecy. It includes also the 
question, which has been so much agitated under 
the name of accommodation. When we examine 
therefore the prophecies, which relate to the Mes¬ 
siah, we examine every question of real interest 
in the subject of prophecy at large. 

Let us begin with an inquiry into that con¬ 
nexion , which subsists between the truth of our 
religion, and the prophecies relating to the Mes¬ 
siah. It is evident from the writings of the 
New Testament, that both our Saviour and his 
Apostles appealed to the prophecies of the Old 
Testament, as affording a principal proof of his 
divine mission. In a conversation with the Jews 
in the temple of Jerusalem, relating to this 
very subject, our Saviour directed them to 4 search 
4 the Scriptures’ (John v. 39.) : and then he 
added, 4 they are they, which testify of me.’ 
Now the writings of the New Testament were 
not then in existence: consequently our Saviour 
could have meant only the Scriptures of the 
Old Testament, and therefore the prophecies 
of the Old Testament. When he addressed the 
twelve Apostles on his last journey to Jerusa¬ 
lem, (Luke xviii. 31.) he said, 4 Behold, we go 
4 up to Jerusalem, and all things, that are writ- 
4 ten by the prophets concerning the Son of 


LECTURE VIII. 


407 


* man, shall be accomplished.’ When he shewed 
himself, after his resurrection, to the two disci¬ 
ples, who were journeying to Emmaus (Luke 
xxiv. 25.) he said to them, ‘ O fools, and slow of 

* heart, to believe all that the prophets have 
‘ spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered 
‘ these things, and to enter into his glory ? And 
4 beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he 

* expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the 
c things concerning himself.’ When he after¬ 
wards appeared in Jerusalem to the eleven Apo¬ 
stles, he addressed them in a similar manner, 
(Luke xxiv. 44.) ‘ These are the words, which I 

* spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that 
‘ all things must be fulfilled , which were written 
‘ in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and 
‘ in the psalms, concerning me.’ 

The same appeal, which was made to the pro¬ 
phecies of the Old Testament by Christ himself, 
in proof of his divine mission, was made also 
by the Apostles of Christ. When Philip, after 
his call to the Apostleship, met with Nathanael, 
he said, (John i. 45.) ‘ We have found Him, of 
‘ whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did 
‘ write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.’ 
When St. Peter addressed the Jews after the 
miracle performed in the temple by himself and 
St. John, he reminded them (Acts iii. 18.) how 


408 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

4 those things, which God before had shewed by 
4 the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ 
4 should suffer, he hath so fulfilled .’— 4 And he 
4 shall send Jesus Christ, which before was 
4 preached unto you, whom the heaven must re- 
4 ceive until the times of the restitution of all 
4 things, which God hath spoken by the mouth 
4 of all his prophets, since the world began.’ 
Then observing that Moses had prophesied of 
Christ, he concluded by saying, 4 Yea, and all 
4 the prophets, from Samuel, and those that 
4 follow after, as many as have spoken, have 
4 likewise foretold of these days' Again, in his 
address to Cornelius, St. Peter declared of Christ, 
(Acts x. 43.) 4 To Him give all the prophets 
4 witness , that through his name whosoever be- 
4 lieveth in him shall receive remission of sins.’ 
And in the first chapter of his first Epistle (v. 10.) 
speaking of the salvation wrought by Jesus Christ, 
he said, 4 Of which salvation the prophets have 
4 inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied 
4 of the grace, that should come unto you: search- 
4 ing what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of 
4 Christ, which was in them, did testify, when it 
4 testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, 

4 and the glory, that should follow . 5 

The appeals of St. Paul to the prophets of the 
Old Testament, as bearing witness to the coming 


LECTU11E VIII. 


409 


of Christ, are still more numerous, than those of 
St. Peter. At the very beginning of his Epistle 
to the Homans, he calls himself 4 an Apostle, 

4 separated unto the gospel of God, which he 
4 had promised afore by his prophets in the holy 
4 Scriptures, concerning his Son Jesus Christ our 
4 Lord.’ In the third chapter of the same 
Epistle, he speaks of the righteousness of God, 
manifested by Jesus Christ, as being 4 witnessed 
by the law and the prophets/ And at the close 
of the same Epistle he declares of the preaching 
of Jesus Christ, that it 4 now is made manifest , 
4 and by the Scriptures of the prophets , according 
4 to the commandment of the everlasting God, 
4 made known to all nations for the obedience 
4 of faith/ In his second chapter of the Epistle 
to the Ephesians he declares, that Jesus Christ 
is the corner-stone of that building, which is 
founded on 44 the Apostles and Prophets /’ When 
he was accused before Felix, he replied, (Acts 
xxiv. 14.) 4 After the way, which they call 
4 heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, 
4 believing all things, which are written in the 
4 law, and in the prophets' And when he pleaded 
before Agrippa, against the same accusation of 
the Jews, he said, (Acts xxvi 22 , 23 .) 4 Having 
4 therefore obtained help from God, I continue 
4 unto this day, witnessing both to small and to 
4 great, saying none other things, than those. 


410 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

‘ which the prophets and Moses did say should 

* come; that Christ should suffer, and that he 
‘ should be the first, that should rise from the 
‘ dead, and should shew light unto the people, 
‘ and to the Gentiles.’ Lastly, when he was 
come to Rome, and had assembled before him the 
chief of the Jews in that city, ‘ he expounded 
‘ and testified of the kingdom of God, persuad- 
‘ ing them concerning Jesus, both out of the 

* law of Moses, and out of the prophets.’ 

Nor are the passages, already quoted, the only 
passages in the New Testament, in which an 
appeal is made to the prophets, as testifying of 
Jesus Christ. The Evangelist St. Mark begins 
his Gospel with an appeal of this description. 

‘ The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, 

* the Son of God, as it is written in the pro- 
‘ phets, Behold I send my messenger before thy 

* face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.’ 
And Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, 
being ‘filled with the Holy Ghost,’ (Luke i. 67.) 
pronounced the following blessing at the cir¬ 
cumcision of his son, who was destined to be 
the forerunner of the Messiah. ‘ Blessed be the 
‘ Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and 

* redeemed his people, and hath raised up a 
‘ horn of salvation for us in the house of his 
‘ servant David, as he spake by the mouth of his 


LECTURE Till. 


411 


4 holy prophets, which have been since the world 
* began.’ 

From these repeated appeals to the prophets 
of the Old Testament, it appears, that their testi¬ 
mony is represented in the New Testament as 
a principal argument for the divine mission of 
Christ. Search the Scriptures, says our Saviour, 
for ‘ they testify of me.’ In me , says our Saviour, 
are the prophecies 4 fulfilled .’ Jesus of Nazareth, 
says St. Philip, is the person, of whom the 
'prophets did write . To Jesus Christ, says St. 
Peter, gave the prophets witness. The preaching 
of Jesus Christ, says St. Paul, was made mani¬ 
fest by the Scriptures of the prophets. The fact, 
therefore, that Jesus was the Messiah, is evi¬ 
dently founded on the predictions of his coming 
in the writings of the Hebrew prophets. 

It is true, that our Saviour appealed also to his 
miracles , in proof of his divine mission. When 
John the Baptist heard in prison the works of 
Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto 
him (Matth. xi. 3.) 4 Art thou He, which should 
come, or do we look for another.’ Jesus answered, 
and said unto them, ‘Go, and shew John again 

* the things, which ye do hear and see. The 

* blind receive their sight; the lame walk; the 
‘ lepers are cleansed; the deaf hear; and the 


412 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

‘ dead are raised up.’ Now the power of work¬ 
ing miracles affords an unquestionable proof, 
that the person, possessed of that power, has 
authority from God. To perform a miracle is 
to suspend or counteract in that instance the 
general laws of nature. And these are laws, 
which no one but the author of them has the 
power of suspending, or counteracting.* When 


* We must distinguish between a power producing effects 
which are really preternatural, and f a power which produces 
f effects which might seem preternatural to those, who have 
f no knowledge of the means.’ In Mechanics, and in Optics, 
experiments may be made, which to those, who are unac¬ 
quainted with the principles, must appear wonderful . But in 
such experiments, wonderful as they may appear to the 
illiterate, the laws of nature are neither suspended nor coun¬ 
teracted. On the contrary, those very experiments are the 
results of the laws of nature. They have no resemblance 
therefore to a miracle, in any degree whatever, or in any 
sense whatever. In our Saviour’s miracles, there was neither 
mechanical, nor optical, nor any other deception; but a real 
suspension of the laws of nature. And that any other power, 
than the Almighty power, which both made those laws, and 
governs the world by them, should be able to alter the con¬ 
stitution and course of nature by a suspension of those laws, is, 
as far as I can judge, absolutely incredible. The Jews indeed, 
who did not deny the reality of our Saviour’s miracles, ascribed 
them to the operation of evil spirits: and Celsus, in his attack 
on the Christian religion, ascribed them to the operation of 
magic. The Jewish argument, that evil spirits can work 

miracles. 



LECTURE VIII. 


413 

our Saviour therefore appealed to his miracles, 
he appealed to them, as a proof, as a legitimate 
proof, that he was armed with divine authority. 
And his miracles alone (independently of other 
arguments, which establish his own true Divinity) 
would be sufficient to prove, as Nicodemus de¬ 
clared, that he was a ‘ teacher sent from God.’ 
But that connexion , which subsists between the 
covenant made with the Jews through Moses, and 
the covenant made with all mankind through 
Christ, would be entirely lost, were it not for the 
intervention of the 'prophecies relating to the 
Messiah. These prophecies form the link, which 


miracles, and therefore that the miracles of our Saviour are no 
proof of his divine authority, was revived in the former part 
of the last century, during the controversy on the argument 
from miracles. And even a late Prelate of our own Church, 
whose words are quoted at the beginning of this Note, has 
very incautiously subscribed to the Jewish doctrine, that evil 
spirits have the power of working miracles: a doctrine which 
tends to destroy the argument from miracles, since the per¬ 
formance of a miracle, if it does not in itself imply divine 
authority, cannot possibly do so by any accidental circum¬ 
stances, whether of benevolence or of any other attribute, 
which may accompany the miracle. These remarks I should 
not have made in a Lecture relating to prophecy, if the passage, 
to which this Note refers, had not been disputed on the 
authority of Bishop Horsley. But the further consideration 
of this question must be deferred, till miracles themselves 
become the immediate subjects of our inquiry. 



414 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

connects the two covenants. By these prophecies 
are we enabled to comprehend the whole scheme 
of Divine Providence, and to understand in 
what manner it was gradually unfolded for the 
redemption of mankind. 

That Jesus of Nazareth therefore was the pro¬ 
mised Messiah, is a fact, which we must be able 
to establish, or we shall fail of establishing that 
comprehensive scheme of Divine Providence, 
which includes the two covenants in one general 
system. And we shall otherwise be unable to 
account for those repeated and solemn appeals to 
the Hebrew prophets, on the part, both of Christ, 
and his Apostles. Christ himself has commanded 
us to search the Scriptures, that we may know 
how they testify of him. We must be able 
therefore to find what he has commanded us to 
seek ; or the command will have been given in 
vain. His Apostles have further declared, that 
he is the person, of whom the prophets did 
write; that he is the person, to whom the pro¬ 
phets gave witness; that he is the person, whose 
preaching was made manifest by the prophets. 
Unless therefore we could shew in what manner 
the prophets did testify of Christ, the declara¬ 
tions, that they did so, would serve only to 
confound us. And the argument for the truth of 
our religion, which we now derive from prophecy, 


LECTURE VIII. 


415 


would weaken, instead of confirming, the argument 
derived from miracles. 

The Hebrew prophets therefore must manifestly 
have borne testimony to the coming of Christ. 
And this testimony must have been so decisive, as 
to admit of no ambiguity, no question, whether 
their predictions relate to the person of Jesus 
Christ, or not. There must be prophecies there¬ 
fore in the Old Testament, which strictly, 
literally, and directly predict the coming of our 
Saviour. There must be something more than 
passages, which may be accommodated (as it is 
called) to his life and character. Passages from 
classic authors are frequently accommodated, or, 
in other words, applied to a present event, as 
descriptive of that event. But such applications 
are founded on a mere accidental parity of cir¬ 
cumstances. In such cases, there is no previous 
design on the part of the quoted author; there 
is no connexion, foreseen on his part, between 
the quoted words and the event, to which they 
are subsequently applied. Though they are 
descriptive therefore of the event, they are not 
predictive of it. 

There must likewise be something more in the 
writings of the Hebrew prophets, than passages, 
which predict the coming of Christ in a sense> 


416 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

which is sometimes called remote , at other times 
secondary, at other times mystical. A prophecy, 
which relates to our Saviour in a mere remote or 
mystical sense, can hardly come within that 
description of prophecy, by which the preaching 
of Christ was made manifest. Nor is this the 
only inconvenience, to which we are thus ex¬ 
posed. For, if we adopt the notion, that the 
prophecies in general, which relate to the 
Messiah, have two senses, a primary and a 
secondary, we involve prophecy itself in such un¬ 
certainty, as to deprive it of the character ascribed 
to it by St. Peter, who called it the sure word of 
prophecy. I do not mean to assert, that no pro¬ 
phecy in the Old Testament has a secondary 
sense: hut I mean to assert, and shall hereafter 
endeavour to prove, that the system , by which 
prophecies of the Old Testament are in general 
supplied with a double meaning, is untenable. 
Nor do I mean to assert, that there are no 
passages of the Old Testament, which are quoted 
and applied in the New Testament to events, of 

which they neither are , nor were meant to be, 

» 

prophetic. The writers of the New Testament 
were at liberty to make such applications of 
passages from Hebrew authors, as we make 
ourselves from Greek and Latin authors. But 
if we extend the doctrine of accommodation even 
to those passages, where the sacred writers have 


LECTURE VIII. 


417 


both declared them to be prophetic, and have em¬ 
ployed them as arguments founded on prophecy, 
the doctrine of accommodation, so understood, 
amounts to nothing less, than a rejection of pro¬ 
phecy. And even with regard to secondary senses, 
if it were true, that the passages in general , which 
have been quoted in the New Testament as pro¬ 
phetic of Jesus Christ, were prophetic of him, not 
in their primary and literal sense, but merely in 
some secondary or mystical sense, the evidence for 
our religion, which is founded on prophecy, would 
be much less satisfactory, than we have reason to 
believe it. 

Under such circumstances, it becomes a matter 
of the highest importance, that we should be able 
to produce a sufficient number of passages from 
the Old Testament, which predict the coming of 
Christ in their plain, literal, and proper sense. 
For such passages alone can possess that decisively 
prophetic character, which the declarations of 
Christ and his Apostles have taught us to expect. 
It shall be the business therefore of the next 
Lecture to collect, and explain, such passages. 
And when we are satisfied about the existence 
of prophecies, which have strictly and literally 
foretold the coming of Christ, we may safely 
inquire in another Lecture, into the foundation 
of secondary senses. 

D D 


INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 


-+.- 

LECTURE IX. 

It appears from the preceding Lecture, that, 
when, agreeably to our Saviour’s directions, we 
search the Scriptures of the Old Testament for 
passages which testify of Christ, for passages, 
which in the words of St. Peter give witness to 
Christ, and by which in the words of St. Paul the 
preaching of Christ is made manifest , we must 
search for passages, which relate to our Saviour, 
according to their plain, literal, and proper sense. 
If the words of a Hebrew prophet, though appli¬ 
cable to a certain event, were not originally writ¬ 
ten with reference to that event, they cannot be 
considered as prophetic of that event. No pas¬ 
sage therefore of the Old Testament, which from 
mere accidental similitude, may he accommodated 
or applied, like a passage from a classic author, 
can he included among those passages, for which 
our Saviour commanded us to search, as for pas¬ 
sages, by which he was testified. Nor can we, in 
the first instance, include those passages, which. 



LECTURE IX. 


419 


though they do relate to our Saviour, relate to 
him only in some secondary sense. For we have 
no means of discovering , that a prophecy of the 
Old Testament really has any other meaning, 
than that, which the words themselves convey by 
their own proper import, except where some other 
meaning has been affixed to them, either by 
Christ or by his Apostles . In whatever case a 
passage of the Old Testament, which, according 
to its plain and literal sense, relates to some 
earlier event in the Jewish history, is yet ap¬ 
plied, either by Christ, or by an Apostle of 
Christ, to what happened in their days, and more¬ 
over is so applied as to indicate that the passage 
is prophetic; of that passage we must conclude, 
on their authority , that, beside the plain or pri¬ 
mary sense, it has also a remote or secondary 
sense. But, in arguing from that authority to 
the existence of a secondary sense, we must be 
careful not to argue in a circle. When we are 
searching the Scriptures for prophecies, which 
testify of Christ, we are searching for that, by 
which his divine authority is to be established. 
We are searching for the means of establishing 
that authority. If therefore while we are thus 
searching, we have recourse to passages, which 
depend on that authority, to passages, of which, 
without that authority, we should not even know, 
that they were prophetic of our Saviour, we pre- 
d d 2 


420 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

viously take for granted the thing, which is here¬ 
after to be proved. We argue from premises, 
which are only so far valid, as the inference is 
valid, which we deduce from those premises. In 
other words, we prove, as well the premises by 
the inference, as the inference by the premises. 
Consequently, when we search the Scriptures of 
the Old Testament for prophecies, which testify 
of Christ, we must in the first instance, confine 
our search to those prophecies, which relate to 
him in a strict and literal sense. And the divine 
authority of Christ being thus established, in 
conjunction with the argument from miracles, 
we may then with consistency consider the pro¬ 
phecies, which relate to him in a secoyidary 
sense. 

Such then being the importance of those pro¬ 
phecies, which relate to the Messiah according to 
their strict and literal sense, I trust that this 
Lecture will not be considered as tedious, if, 
instead of producing only one or two examples 
by way of illustration , I extend the inquiry to 
many such examples. But to prevent mistakes 
about the meaning of any passage, which is said 
to be literally prophetic of the Messiah, it is 
necessary to define the term, and to explain what 
is generally understood by literal interpretation. 
When we consider the senses of single words, 
we consider whether they are used in a literal 


LECTURE IX. 


421 


sense, or used in a figurative sense; whether 
they are used in a grammatical sense, or used 
in a tropical sense; whether they are used in 
their primary and proper sense, or used in an 
improper or acquired sense. But when we speak 
of the literal or grammatical interpretation of a 
whole sentence , we do not thereby understand 
that every single word in that sentence is to be 
construed according to its proper, literal, and 
grammatical sense. Even in the plainest narra¬ 
tives we often meet with single words, which are 
used in a figurative sense. Yet if no mystical ; 
or allegorical meaning is affixed to those nar¬ 
ratives, in addition to the plain facts, which the 
words themselves were intended to record, those 
narratives are still said to he taken in a literal 
sense. In like manner, if a passage, instead of 
recording a past event, is a record of a future 
event, that passage is said to be literally under¬ 
stood, if the application of it is confined to that 
one event, however figurative the sense may be 
of any single word, or words, employed in that 
passage. This explanation is so much the more 
necessary, as Hebrew prophecy abounds with figu¬ 
rative terms . 

Let us now consider the examples , which 
strictly and literally relate to the Messiah, though 
in some of them we shall find many single words. 


422 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

which are highly figurative. But I must pre¬ 
viously express my obligations on this subject to 
Bishop Chandler, whom I have chosen for my 
guide in the selection of those prophecies, which 
literally predict the coming of Christ. Indeed 
a better guide on this subject we cannot have. 
No man has more clearly perceived the impor¬ 
tance of literal prophecy relating to the Messiah ; 
no man has taken greater pains to determine 
the question, what is literal prophecy, and what 
is not ,* nor has any one surpassed him in that 
kind of erudition, which is necessary for such an 
inquiry. Since then we may be contented with 
the examples, which Bishop Chandler has given 
of literal prophecy, I will now produce them, 
accompanied with such brief remarks, as the 
prophecies themselves suggest*. 

Beginning with the last prophet in the Old 
Testament, and concluding with the prophet 


* A minute and critical examination of every expression, 
used in the prophecies here quoted, would be contrary to 
the plan of these Lectures. In fact, it is a deviation from 
that plan (as explained in the first Lecture), to produce so 
many examples relating to one subject, and nothing but the 
great importance of this subject could justify such a devia¬ 
tion. We are at present concerned with the principles of 
interpretation; and examples only so far accord with the 
plan, as they serve to illustrate those principles. 



LECTURE IX. 


423 


Isaiah, he takes his first example from Mala- 
chi iii. 1. ‘Behold, I send my messenger, and he 
*' shall prepare the way before me : and the Lord, 

4 whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his tem- 
4 pie, even the Messenger of the Covenant, whom 
4 ye delight in; behold he shall come, saith the 
4 Lord of hosts.’ This prophecy is the more re¬ 
markable, as two persons are introduced into it; 
namely, the Lord who shall come to his temple, 
and the Messenger, who shall prepare his way. 
When two or more persons are mentioned, there 
is always less probability, that the agreement 
between the description and the event should he 
accidental , than when only one person is men¬ 
tioned. And in the present case the description 
not only corresponds with the persons of our Sa¬ 
viour, and John the Baptist, but corresponds 
with no other two persons in the whole Jewish 
history. It must therefore be a prophecy of our 
Saviour and John the Baptist: a prophecy of our 
Saviour and John the Baptist, according to its 
plain and literal meaning: and it is quoted as 
such by our Saviour himself, Matth. xi. 10. 

The second example is taken from Malachi iv. 
5, 6. 4 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet 
‘ before the coming of the great and dreadful day 
c of the Lord. And he shall turn the heart of the 
4 fathers to the children, and the heart of the 


424 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

\ children to the fathers, lest I come and smite the 
‘ earth with a curse.’ This prophecy our Saviour 
himself applies to John the Baptist, Matth. xvii. 
12, 13. Some commentators indeed have sup¬ 
posed, that he applied it only in a secondary sense, 
because when John the Baptist was asked, e Art 
\ thou Elias?’ he saith, ‘I am not.’ John i. 21. 
But though John the Baptist was not literally 
Elias, or Elijah, the prophecy might literally re¬ 
late to him: for the literal interpretation of a 
whole sentence does not exclude the figurative 
use of single words. In all countries, and in all 
languages, it is common to affix the names of 
known and distinguished characters to persons 
resembling them in a later age: and there were 
various points, in which John the Baptist re¬ 
sembled the prophet Elijah. They were alike 
in courage: they were alike in zeal for the re¬ 
storation of pure religion: they were alike in 
the austerity of their manners. Truly therefore 
might John the Baptist he called another Elijah. 
And though he was not literally Elijah, though 
he was Elijah only in a metaphorical sense, yet 
we have already seen, that the metaphorical use 
of single terms does not prevent a whole passage 
from being a literal prophecy . 

The third example, which is a very important 
one, is taken from Haggai ii. 6—9. ‘ For thus 


LECTURE IX. 


4 25 


* saith the Lord of hosts; Yet once, it is a little 
‘ while, and I will shake the heavens, and the 

* earth, and the sea, and the dry land. And I will 
‘ shake all nations, and the Desire of all nations 
‘ shall come, and I will fill this House with glory, 
4 saith the Lord of hosts. The silver is mine, and 
4 the gold is mine, saith the Lord of hosts. The 
‘ glory of this latter house shall be greater, than of 
‘ the former, and in this place will I give peace, 
‘ saith the Lord of hosts.’ It is well known, that 
the second temple of Jerusalem was in itself far 
inferior in glory to the first temple, or the temple 
of Solomon. The greater glory therefore of the 
second temple could have been no other, than that, 
which it derived from the advent of the Messiah, 
The Jews themselves have always understood this 
passage of the Messiah, though, when the Messiah 
was come, they refused to acknowledge him, be¬ 
cause he did not answer in all respects to the 
expectations, which they themselves had formed. 
But whatever doubts they might have entertained 
during the life of our Saviour, whatever expecta¬ 
tions they might have formed, while the second 
temple was still standing , one should have sup¬ 
posed, that the destruction of that temple by the 
Romans, with the total failure of the attempts, 
which have been made to rebuild it, would have 
convinced the Jews of later ages, that the Messiah, 
whom they expected, as the glory of the second 


426 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

Temple, could have been no other, than Jesus 
Christ. There is no longer room for an expectation 
of the Messiah: there is no possibility of a future 
Messiah being the glory of the second Temple. 
For the second Temple is destroyed, and de¬ 
stroyed as the true Messiah predicted. 

The fourth example is taken from Zech. ix. 9. 
‘ Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, 
€ O daughter of Jerusalem: behold thy King 
‘ cometh unto thee; he is just, and having salva- 
‘ tion; lowly and riding upon an ass, and upon 
‘ a colt, the foal of an ass.’ There is no other 
event in the Jewish history, to which this pro¬ 
phecy can be applied, than to the entrance of 
our Saviour into Jerusalem: and the Evangelists 
accordingly apply it to that purpose. It is there¬ 
fore a plain and literal prophecy of Jesus Christ. 
For of whom but of Jesus Christ, can it be said, 
that he is both just and having salvation ? Of 
whom but of Jesus Christ can it be said, that he 
entered Jerusalem in the manner described, and 
was at the same time entitled to the appellation 
of King ? 

The fifth example is taken from Zech. xii. 10. 
‘ I will pour upon the house of David, and upon 
‘ the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace 
‘ and of supplications: and they shall look upon 


LECTURE IX. 


427 


* me, whom they have pierced, and they shall 
‘ mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only 
‘ son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one, 
e that is in bitterness for his first-born.’ This 
passage is quoted by St. John in his account of 
the crucifixion, and is there represented as pro¬ 
phetic of our Saviour’s being pierced with a spear 
by one of the Roman soldiers. An objection 
indeed has been made on account of the differ¬ 
ence in the personal pronouns; the words of 
Zechariah being 4 They shall look on me , whom 
they have pierced,’ whereas the words quoted by 
St. John (xix. 37.) are, 4 They shall look on him, 
whom they pierced.’ But there are Hebrew* 
manuscripts, in which the text of Zechariah 
agrees with the text of St. John; and even if 
there were not, the first person is so frequently 
exchanged for the third person in quotations, that 
one cannot allow the exchange in question \o 
form any serious ground of objection. The pro¬ 
phet was hardly speaking of himself; and that 
he could allude only to our Saviour, appears from 
a comparison of this prophecy with the corre¬ 
sponding prophecy in Isaiah (liii. 5.) 4 he was 
wounded for our transgressions.’ For if the 
simple fact , that one of the Roman soldiers 
pierced our Saviour’s side, does not of itself 
determine the prophecy as belonging to our 
Saviour, the circumstances of the case must con- 


428 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

fine it to him alone. Here can be no accidental 
parity of circumstances; for there is no other 
person, beside our Saviour, to whom the words 
of the prophet can be applied. He is assuredly 
the only one, whose side was pierced for our 
transgressions: he is assuredly the only one, of 
whom it can be said, that he bare our sins in 
his own body on the tree. 

The sixth example is taken from Daniel ii. 44. 

* And in the days of these kings shall the God of 
■ heaven set up a kingdom, which shall not be 
‘ destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to 

* other people, hut it shall break in pieces, and 
‘ shall consume all these kingdoms, and shall 
4 stand for ever.’ 

There is no necessity for dwelling long upon 
this prophecy. There is only one kingdom, of 
which we can say, 4 it shall not he destroyed.’ 
There is only one kingdom, of which we can 
say, ‘ it shall stand for ever.’ And that kingdom 
is the kingdom of Christ. 

The seventh example, which is likewise taken 
from the hook of Daniel (vii. 13, 14.) is a similar 
prophecy of the Messiah, though with considerable 
amplification. 4 1 saw’ (says Daniel) ‘in the night- 
‘ visions, and behold one like the Son of Man 


LECTURE IX. 


429 


* came with the clouds of heaven, and came to 
4 the Ancient of days, and they brought him 
4 near before him. And there was given him 
4 dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all 
4 people, nations, and languages should serve him: 

4 his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which 
4 shall not pass away, and his kingdom that, 

4 which shall not be destroyed.’ 

That this prophecy was literally and strictly 
fulfilled in the person of our Saviour, and that 
it neither has been, nor ever can be, fulfilled in 
any one else, is so obvious, that explanation is 
unnecessary. Of no temporal prince can it be 
said, that all nations and languages shall serve 
him. Of no human being can it be said, that 
his dominion is an everlasting dominion. 

The eighth example is the celebrated prophecy 
of Daniel relating to the seventy weeks. Ch. ix. 
24—27. 4 Seventy weeks are determined upon 

4 thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the 
4 transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to 
4 make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in 
4 everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision 
4 and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 
4 Know therefore and understand, that from the 
4 going forth of the commandment, to restore and 
4 to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince 


430 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

‘ shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two 
‘ weeks. The street shall he built again, and the 
‘ wall even in troublous times. And after three- 
‘ score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, 
‘ but not for himself. And the people of the 

* Prince, that shall come, shall destroy the city 
‘ and the sanctuary: and the end thereof shall 
f he with a flood, and unto the end of the war 
‘ desolations are determined. And he shall con- 
‘ firm the covenant with many for one week: and 
‘ in the midst of the week he shall cause the 
‘ sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and for the 
‘ overspreading of abominations he shall make it 
e desolate, even until the consummation, and that 

* determined, shall be poured upon the desolate.’ 

No prophecy has been subjected to greater con¬ 
troversy, than this: and the modes of computing 
the chronological parts of it are almost as various 
as the interpreters are numerous. An examination 
of the various opinions, which have been enter¬ 
tained on this very difficult subject, cannot now 
be attempted, as it would require a dissertation 
of itself: nor is it necessary for our present 
purpose. From whatever event we date the 
computation, or in whatever manner we explain 
the threescore and two weeks, after which 
Messiah shall be cut off, the description of the 
thing itself so accords with the circumstances 


LECTURE IX. 431 

of our Saviour’s death, that we cannot apply it 
to any one else. He was cut off, but not for 
himself. And before the seven weeks, which 
were added to the threescore and two weeks, 
had likewise elapsed, that is, before seven times 
seven years had elapsed after the time when 
Messiah was cut off, the people of the prince, 
that should come, that is, the Romans under the 
command of Titus, destroyed the city and the 
sanctuary. And that the prophecy of Daniel was 
accomplished according to its strict, literal, and 
primary sense, is evident from the definition of 
time , with which it is accompanied. A prophecy, 
in which the period of its accomplishment is de¬ 
termined, is incapable of a two-fold application. 

The ninth example is taken from the prophet 
Micah, ch. v. 2. 6 But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, 
4 though thou he little among the thousands of 
4 Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto 
4 me, that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings 
4 forth have been of old from everlasting.’ Nothing 
can be clearer, than that this prophecy was strictly 
and literally fulfilled in the person of our Saviour. 
No one ever doubted that our Saviour was born at 
Bethlehem, a town near Jerusalem, a town belong¬ 
ing to the tribe of Judah, and anciently called 
Ephrath or Ephrata, which name the prophet 
Micah retains, in order to distinguish the Bethle- 


432 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

hem of Judah from another Bethlehem in the 
north of Palestine. That Bethlehem of Judah, 
though formerly a place of some importance, was 
little better than a village at the time of our 
Saviour’s birth, is a fact universally known. That 
our Saviour was a ruler in Israel, appears from the 
tenor of his whole life. And he is unquestionably 
the only one, who ever appeared in the form of 
man, of whom we can declare, that his goings 
forth were i from everlasting .’ 

The tenth example is taken from the prophet 
Habakkuk, (ii. 3, 4.): and the eleventh from the 
prophet Amos (ix. 11, 12.) But as the applica¬ 
tion of these two prophecies to the Messiah is 
less obvious, than that of the other examples, 
let us proceed to the twelfth and last example, 
which is the most important of all. 

This example is taken from the fifty-third 
chapter of Isaiah, and properly begins at the 
third verse. 4 He is despised and rejected of 
4 men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with 
4 grief. And we hid as it were our faces from 
4 him: he was despised, and we esteemed him 
4 not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and car- 
4 ried our sorrows : yet we did esteem him strick- 
4 en, smitten of God and afflicted. But he was 
* wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised 


LECTURE IX. 433 

■ for our iniquities. The chastisement of our 
4 peace was upon Him , and with his stripes we 
4 are healed. All we, like sheep, have gone 
4 astray: we have turned every one to his own 
4 way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the 
4 iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he, 

4 was afflicted ; yet he opened not his mouth. He 
4 is brought, as a lamb to the slaughter: and, as 
4 a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he 
4 openeth not his mouth. He was taken from 
4 prison and from judgment; and who shall de¬ 
clare his generation? For he was cut out of 
4 the land of the living: for the transgression 
4 of my people was he stricken. -And he made 
4 his grave with the wicked, and with the rich 
4 in his death, because he had done no violence, 
4 neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it 
4 pleased the Lord to bruise him ; he hath put 
4 him to grief. When thou shalt make his soul 
4 an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he 
4 shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the 
4 Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see 
4 of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied. 
4 By his knowledge shall my righteous servant 
4 justify many: for he shall bear their iniquities. 
4 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the 
4 great, and he shall divide the spoil with the 
4 strong: because he hath poured out his soul unto 
4 death, and he was numbered with the trans- 
E E 


434 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

* gressors, and he bare the sin of many, and made 

* intercession for the transgressors.’ 

In the chapter of Isaiah, which has been just 
quoted, we have a plain and literal description of 
our Saviour’s sufferings, death, and burial: indeed 
no less plain and literal, than any historical narra¬ 
tive could be, which was written after the events 
themselves had taken place. And that this literal 
description is really literal prophecy, is a matter, 
which cannot be questioned. The only way to 
prove, that it is history, and not prophecy, would 
be to prove the whole chapter an interpolation in 
the book of Isaiah. Now one should hardly sup¬ 
pose, that it was interpolated by the Jews, to 
whom it is a serious obstacle . But if it is an 
interpolation, the Jews alone could have been 
the authors of it. Had it been interpolated by 
Christians , it would never have been admitted 
by the Jews into their copies of the Hebrew 
Bible. Yet it has been universally admitted: 
for not a single Hebrew manuscript was ever 
discovered without this Chapter. If the Jews 
however did interpolate this Chapter, we cannot 
possibly suppose, that the interpolation was sub¬ 
sequent to the death of Christ. They would 
surely not have been so absurd as to fabricate 
evidence against themselves, though their vene¬ 
ration for the sacred oracles prevented them from 


LECTURE IX. 


435 


expunging what already existed there. If there¬ 
fore the Chapter is an interpolation at all, it 
must have been interpolated before the events, 
described in it, had taken place. But if the 
Chapter was written before the events, described 
in it, had taken place, it is still an example of 
literal prophecy, whether it proceeded from Isaiah, 
or proceeded from some other prophet. And it 
is immaterial whether we call the writer of this 
prophecy by the name of Isaiah, or call him by 
any other name. But in fact there is no more 
reason to doubt the authenticity of this Chapter, 
than of any other in the whole book. Nor have 
the Jews themselves, when pressed with this 
prophecy, though they acknowledge the difficulties 
to which it exposes them, ever attempted to evade 
those difficulties by pretending that Isaiah was 
not the author of it. 

Now there is no person in the whole of the 
Jewish history, from the time of Isaiah to the 
destruction of Jerusalem, to whom this prophecy 
is applicable, except to our Saviour: and to Him 
it is applicable in every point. Of whom but of 
our Saviour can it be said, that he hath borne 
our griefs, and carried our sorrows? Of whom, 
but of our Saviour can it be said, that he was 
wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for 
our iniquities? Of whom else could it be said, 
E e 2 


436 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

that he was stricken for the transgression of his 
people, and that his soul was an offering for sin? 
In fact that single sentence, 4 he was numbered 
with the transgressors , he bare the sin of many, 
and made intercession for the transgressors,’ is 
the sum and substance of the history, which the 
Evangelists have given of our Saviour’s passion. 
An objection indeed has been made to that part 
of the prophecy, where it is said, ‘ he made his 
grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his 
death.’ For though our Saviour died with the 
wicked, he did not make his grave with the 
wicked: nor was he literally buried with the rich. 
But the objection does not effect the Hebrew 
original: it effects only our English translation. 
Bishop Lowth has more correctly rendered the 
passage in the following manner: 4 His grave was 
appointed with the wicked; but with the rich man 
was his tomb.’ This translation removes the first 
difficulty, but not altogether the second. The most 
accurate translation is the Latin translation of 
Professor Hathe: 6 Destinatum quidem ei erat 
sepulchrum cum impiis, sed in morte sua divi- 
tibus similis fuit.’ This translation perfectly ac¬ 
cords with the circumstances of our Saviour’s 
death and burial. In consequence of being crw- 
cified in company with malefactors, he was so far 
destined to have also his grave with them; for, 
according to the common course of things, he 


LECTURE IX. 


437 


would, after being crucified with them, have been 
also buried with them. On the other hand, though 
he was not buried with the rich, being laid in 
a sepulchre where no one had lain before, yet he 
was buried after the manner of the rich, being 
laid in a tomb, which a man of the highest 
rank among the Jews had prepared for his own 
family. Thus we see, that every part of this 
remarkable prophecy was strictly and literally 
fulfilled in the person of our Saviour. 

To the examples already quoted from Bishop 
Chandler’s Defence of Christianity, might be 
added other prophecies, which literally apply to 
our Saviour, and to no one else. But it will be 
sufficient to add one more example, which is 
an example of great importance. In the ninth 
Chapter of Isaiah, says the prophet; * Unto us 
‘ a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and 
‘ the government shall be upon his shoulder; 

* and his name shall be Wonderful, Counsellor, 
‘ The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The 
‘ Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his govern- 

* ment and peace there shall be no end, upon 
‘ the throne of David, and upon his kingdom 
‘ to order it, and to establish it with judgement 
‘ and with justice, from henceforth even for ever? 
Here we have a description, which is quite in¬ 
applicable to any temporal prince. Whatever 


438 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

allowances be granted for oriental hyperbole; 
whatever deductions be made on this account from 
the grandeur of this description, there is one part 
at least, which must be taken literally. When 
Isaiah declared, that of his government there 
should be no end , the expression is too precise, 
to admit any latitude of interpretation. This 
part therefore must be interpreted literally. But 
of what temporal Prince can we say, that his 
government has no end? There are also other 
reasons, which prevent its application to any 
temporal Prince among the Jews. The prophecy 
was delivered in the reign of Hezekiah, to 
whom indeed a son was born; but a son, who 
was neither Counsellor, nor Wonderful, nor the 
Prince of Peace, For ‘ Manasseh made Judah 
< and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to err, and 
45 to do worse than the heathen, whom the Lord 
‘ had destroyed before the children of Israel.’ 
(2 Chron, xxxiii. 9.) And his government had 
not only an end, but a melancholy end: for the 
King of Assyria ‘ bound him with fetters, and 
carried him captive to Babylon.’ Nor did many 
years elapse, before Jerusalem itself was levelled 
with the ground. And if we examine the later 
period of the Jewish history, if we endeavour to 
find in this sublime passage a description, either 
of Judas Maccabaeus, or of Simon, or of Hyrcanus, 
or of any other prince of the Asmonaean race, the 


LECTURE IX. 


439 


prophecy is again inapplicable. For those princes 
were not of the house of David: and to the house 
of David was that prophecy restricted. It applies 
therefore to the person of the Messiah, and of the 
Messiah alone. 

The examples, which have been quoted in this 
Lecture, afford sufficient proof, that the Hebrew 
prophets have strictly and literally foretold the 
coming of Christ. How far, and in what respect, 
they have foretold his coming in a secondary 
sense, shall be the subject of inquiry in the next 
Lecture. 



INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 


-+-~ 

LECTURE X. 

The examples, which were quoted in the pre¬ 
ceding Lecture, are sufficient to shew, that, if 
agreeably to our Saviour’s directions, we search 
the Scriptures of the Old Testament for passages, 
which testify of Him, our researches will not be 
fruitless. For the examples, quoted in that Lec¬ 
ture are prophecies, which testify of Christ, accord¬ 
ing to their plain and literal meaning. We may 
now, therefore, without anxiety, inquire into 
the foundation of that sense, which is sometimes 
called the remote sense, at other times the mys¬ 
tical sense, at other times the secondary sense, 
of prophecy. For let the result of an inquiry 
into secondary senses be what it will, the pro¬ 
phecies, which testify of Christ according to their 
primary sense, are sufficiently numerous, to supply 
us with arguments for the truth of our religion. 

** 

In conducting the proposed inquiry, we must 
examine the two following questions. First, we 



LECTURE X. 


441 


must examine what the difficulties are, which 
attend the notion of secondary senses in general. 
And then we must examine, whether, notwith¬ 
standing those difficulties, there are not some 
prophecies of the Old Testament, which really 
have a secondary sense. 

In the first place then, let us consider the 
difficulties , which attend the notion of secondary 
senses in general. With respect to single words , 
there are few, which do not admit of more senses 
than one: and it frequently happens, that the 
same word , in different passages, is used in very 
different senses. But then it must he observed, 
that in each of these passages, the word has its 
determinate meaning: and that it is not allow¬ 
able to exchange at pleasure the sense, which 
attaches to the word in one case, for the sense, 
which attaches to it in another. If it were, 
the words of an author would he understood in 
a very different sense from that, which he him¬ 
self affixed to them ; they would not be signs 
to the reader of what was thought by the au¬ 
thor; and the object of his writing would be 
defeated. 

On the other hand, though perspicuity is in 
general the first duty of an author, there are 
cases, where the object, which he has in view, 


442 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

can be attained only by ambiguity . It may be 
an author’s design to write enigmatically: and 
this object will be best promoted by the selection 
of such words, as admit of two different senses 
in one and the same place. Words so chosen, 
and so placed, are then designedly used in a 
double sense. But in such cases, though the 
words are used in a double sense, and the 
author’s meaning is so far ambiguous, there is 
in general a limit to the ambiguity. If the author 
intended nothing more, than a common enigma, 
it is a thing, which admits of a solution . We 
may discover, not only what the two senses are , 
in which the ambiguous term is used, but also in 
what manner each of those senses, according to 
the author’s design, is to be applied. And even 
where the author intended to leave the reader, or 
hearer, entirely in the dark, with respect to the 
proper application of the two senses attached to 
the ambiguous term, it is seldom a question what 
those senses are . When, for instance, a heathen 
oracle was delivered in such ambiguous terms, as 
to make it accord with a future event, whether 
that event proved favourable, or unfavourable, to 
the person, who consulted the oracle, the ambi* 
guity consisted, not in any doubt about the senses 
themselves , between which the person had to 
choose, but in the want of a clue, to determine 
his choice. 


LECTURE X. 


443 


There is no analogy, therefore, between the 
ambiguity observable in the two preceding cases, 
and the double sense of prophecy, as the term is 
understood, in reference to the sacred writings. 
When we interpret a prophecy of the Old Testa¬ 
ment, which, besides its literal meaning, is sup¬ 
posed to contain a mystical meaning, or, in other 
words, a prophecy, which is supposed to contain, 
both a 'primary and a secondary sense, the grand 
difficulty is to ascertain what that secondary sense 
really is. We are not in want of a clue, to 
determine our choice between two senses already 
known; but we want a clue, which shall lead us 
from the knowledge of one sense to a discovery 
of the other. The primary sense of a Hebrew 
prophecy is ascertained by a grammatical analysis 
of the Hebrew words. But no such grammatical 
analysis will assist us, in discovering the secon¬ 
dary sense of a Hebrew prophecy. Indeed most 
writers, who treat of secondary senses, contend, 
that those secondary senses were unknown to the 
prophets themselves; and that Divine Providence 
so ordered it, that the very persons, who committed 
to writing the words, which were dictated by the 
Holy Spirit, did not perceive the ivhole extent of 
their meaning. But if words, employed in a 
Hebrew prophecy, were intended to convey a sense 
so remote from the common acceptation of the 
words, that even the prophet, who wrote the 


444 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

words, did not perceive the sense intended, the 
same divine authority which communicated the 
prophecy, must interpose, to explain the pro¬ 
phecy. For, without such divine interposition, 
it would be absurd to suppose, that we could dis¬ 
cover the meaning of a prophecy, which the 
prophet himself was unable to discover. If we 
say, that a prophecy relating to the Messiah 
may be understood by us, though not by the 
prophet, because we have the advantage of having 
seen its accomplishment, we argue, though uncon¬ 
sciously, from a petitio principii. When it is 
previously known, that a prophecy does relate to 
the Messiah, they, who live to see its accomplish¬ 
ment, will undoubtedly have a more comprehen¬ 
sive view of the subject, than they, who lived in 
a preceding age. But, when the question is in 
agitation, whether a certain passage of the Old 
Testament, which, according to its literal mean¬ 
ing, does not apply to the Messiah, has also a 
mystical meaning, which does so apply, we take 
for granted the thing to be proved, if we begin 
by arguing about its accomplishment. We must 
ascertain the existence of the prophecy, before 
the accomplishment of the prophecy can be matter 
even of inquiry. It is true, that the words, in 
which a prophecy is delivered, may be of such 
general import, as not to excite the notion of any 
one particular event; but that a particular event 


LECTURE X. 


445 


may happen in a future age, which so accords 
with the words of the prophecy, as to enable us 
to perceive a connexion between the words and 
the event, which was not perceived before the 
event. And, if a prophecy can be interpreted by 
no other means than by history , or by the actual 
arrival of that very event, to which the prophecy 
relates, the prophecy must in that case be ful¬ 
filled, before the prophecy can be understood. 
But then it must be observed, that throughout 
the whole of this reasoning the existence of the 
prophecy is pre-snpposed. We set out with the 
supposition, that a certain passage was originally 
designed to be prophetic of some future event: 
and then comparing a particular event with the 
description given in that passage, we argue from 
the similarity between the event and the descrip¬ 
tion, that the one is connected with the other. 
But in whatever case we must previously exa¬ 
mine, whether a passage of the Old Testament 
really was designed for prophecy, or not; in 
other words, wherever the existence of a prophecy 
must be previously established, something more 
is requisite for that purpose, than a mere cor¬ 
respondence between the passage in question, and 
the event, to which we apply it. 

Now, if we consider the peculiar character of 
prophecy in a second ary sense, we shall find that 


446 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

the existence of every such prophecy must be 
established, before we can begin to argue about 
its accomplishment. And to conduct such a 
proof is not quite so easy, as many writers have 
imagined. In this respect, there is a material 
difference between prophecy in a primary sense, 
and prophecy in a secondary sense. The pri¬ 
mary sense of a prophecy is the literal sense of 
the passage, by which the prophecy is conveyed. 
And this sense we obtain by a grammatical ana¬ 
lysis of the words. But when we attempt to 
discover a secondary sense, we attempt to go 
further , than the words will carry us. Beside 
the plain and primary sense, which the words of 
the prophecy do convey, we seek for some remote, 
or mystical sense, which the words of the pro¬ 
phecy do not convey. Consequently we under¬ 
take what we ourselves have not the means of 
performing. 

It is true, that many writers have endeavoured 
to shew the practicability of the attempt by 
comparing the double sense of prophecy with 
the double sense of allegory. Every allegory has 
two senses ; one of which is a literal sense, the 
other an allegorical sense. And a knowledge of 
the first sense leads us to a discovery of the 
second sense. Why therefore (it is said) may 
we not ascribe a double sense to prophecy ? And, 


LECTURE X. 


447 


if a prophecy has a double sense, may we not 
argue from the first to the second sense, in the 
same manner, as we argue from the first to the 
second sense in allegory f This is the common 
argument in favour of that system, which pro¬ 
vides a double meaning for the prophecies of the 
Old Testament, the one relating to the Jewish , 
the other to the Christian dispensation. But the 
argument, though very specious, and employed 
by very eminent writers, will appear on exami¬ 
nation to he altogether untenable. It is founded 
on a supposed analogy between the double sense 
of prophecy, and the double sense of allegory; 
whereas, the two things, instead of being analo¬ 
gous, are totally dissimilar. When we interpret 
a j 'prophecy , to which a double meaning is as¬ 
cribed, the one relating to the Jewish, the other 
to the Christian dispensation, we are in either 
case concerned with an interpretation of words . 
For the same words, which, according to one 
interpretation, are applied to one event, are, 
according to another interpretation, applied to 
another event. But, in the interpretation of an 
allegory , we are concerned only in the first in¬ 
stance with an interpretation of words: the 
second sense, which is usually called the alle¬ 
gorical sense, being an interpretation of things , 
as was fully proved in the Lecture on that subject. 
An allegory is commonly delivered in the form 


448 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

of a narrative, as in those two incomparable alle¬ 
gories, our Saviour’s parable of the sower, and 
Nathan’s parable to David. And the interpre¬ 
tation of the ivords gives nothing more, than the 
plain and simple narratives themselves; whereas 
the moral of the allegory is learnt by an appli¬ 
cation of the things , signified by those words, to 
other things , which resemble them, and which 
the former were intended to suggest . There is 
a fundamental difference therefore between the 
interpretation of an allegory , and the interpre¬ 
tation of a prophecy with a double sense. 

If we proceed with the parallel, we shall find 
other differences, which destroy the analogy alto¬ 
gether. In the interpretation of prophecy we 
are concerned with historic truth : in the inter¬ 
pretation of allegory we are concerned with moral 
truth. And this difference leads again to a still 
greater difference. For since the object of alle¬ 
gory is moral truth, the narrative, which conveys 
the allegory, is commonly fictitious , as in the two 
examples already quoted. But in the interpre¬ 
tation of prophecy , whether we consider the 
primary, or consider the secondary sense, we are 
wholly and solely concerned with real events. 
Lastly, in the interpretation of an allegory, we 
have a clue , which leads us from one sense to 
the other. Sometimes the allegory is accompanied 


LECTURE X. 


449 


with an explanation: and even where an allegory 
is left to explain itself, the application of one 
sense to the other must he easy and obvious, or 
the object of the allegory will he defeated. If 
the immediate representation, which is suggested 
by the words of the allegory, has not a manifest 
correspondence with the ultimate representation, 
or the moral of the allegory, we lose the very 
thing, which constitutes its worth . In every 
allegory therefore there is, and must he, a clue, 
which leads from one sense to the other. But in 
the interpretation of a prophecy , to which a double 
meaning is ascribed, we have no clue whatever, 
which can lead us from the primary to the second¬ 
ary sense. The primary sense is suggested by 
the words of the prophecy. But the secondary 
sense is suggested, neither by the words of the 
prophecy, nor by the things, which those words 
signify. It is a hidden, a remote sense; indeed 
so hidden, and so remote from the literal sense, 
that it is supposed to have been unknown even 
to the prophet, who committed the prophecy to 
writing. 

Yet, with all these impediments, the system of 
primary and secondary senses received such an 
accession of strength from the celebrated author of 
the Divine Legation, that many subsequent writers 
have agreed with him in the opinion, that the 
F F 


450 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

system, as he explained it, is proof against every 
objection. According to this explanation, the ex¬ 
istence of secondary senses in Hebrew prophecy 
is founded on the supposition of their 6 logical 
propriety and moral fitness.’ The secondary sense 
of a prophecy is there represented, as having the 
same relation to the primary sense, which an 
antitype has to its type. But, if the primary 
and secondary senses of prophecy are subservient 
to the same end with types and antitypes, it is 
inferred, that they rest on the same foundation. 
As the Jews, for instance, when they sacrificed 
their paschal lamb, were not aware, that this was 
a type, prophetic of the sacrifice of Christ, so it 
is argued, that there might be verbal prophecies 
of the same event, though the literal meaning 
of those prophecies no more suggested that event 
to the Jews, than the type , by which it was 
prefigured. And the moral fitness , as well of 
primary and secondary senses on the one hand, 
as of types and antitypes on the other, is argued 
on the following ground. The Law being only 
a preparation for the Gospel, the Jews were kept 
in ignorance about the real tendency of types, 
till those types were superseded by the accom¬ 
plishment of their antitypes: for, if they had 
previously understood the meaning of those types, 
they might have neglected the Law, before the 
fulness of time was come. A fore-knowledge of 


LECTURE X. 


451 


its intended abolition, a fore-knowledge, that it 
was only a shadow of better things to come, might 
have induced them to disregard the 'preparatory 
Dispensation, even during the period, while it 
was destined to last. But the same reason, as 
is further argued, for which the Jews were kept 
in ignorance about the meaning of types relating 
to the Messiah, must have operated also in the 
case of verbal prophecy relating to the Messiah. 
The same veil of obscurity, which was thrown 
over the former, is supposed therefore to have 
been necessarily thrown over the latter, in order 
to preserve consistency in the several parts of 
the Jewish Dispensation. And to this purpose 
nothing is supposed to have been better adapted 
than the use of secondary senses; because these 
senses are so remote from the literal sense, that 
they occurred not to the prophets themselves. 
Lastly, to the objection, that secondary or my¬ 
stical senses may be multiplied without end, 
while the literal or primary sense of a passage 
can be only one 9 it is answered, that, when the 
system is so explained, the secondary sense 
has no less its limit, than the primary sense, 
the one being determined by a reference to the 
Christian dispensation, as the other is determined 
by a reference to the Jewish dispensation. 

Such is the sum and substance of that ingenious 
f f 2 


452 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

system, which was proposed by the celebrated 
author of the Divine Legation. But, if we ex¬ 
amine it closely, we shall find, that it labours 
under difficulties, which are not easily surmounted. 
In the first place, the tendency of this system 
is to destroy entirely the notion of prophecies, 
which relate to the coming of Christ according 
to their literal sense. But we have already seen, 
not only how important it is to shew the ex¬ 
istence of such prophecies; we have further seen, 
that many such prophecies really do exist. That 
the tendency of this system is to destroy the 
notion of literal prophecy, appears from the very 
purport of the system. The logical propriety 
and moral fitness, which are supposed to have 
operated in one case, must be supposed to have 
operated in another. The whole system would 
be destroyed by the allowance of exceptions. If 
concealment was the object of secondary senses, 
that object would be defeated by every prophecy, 
which foretold the coming of Christ in a literal 
sense. And accordingly we find, that the author 
himself in his Doctrine of Grace, speaks of the 
prophecies which relate to the Messiah, as relat¬ 
ing to him generally in a secondary sense. But 
in a part of his Divine Legation he appears so 
sensible of the importance of literal prophecy, 
that he allows the existence of some such pro¬ 
phecies, and even argues against Grotius, who 


LECTURE X. 


453 


denies their existence. At the same time, being 
aware, that prophecies, however few , which predict 
the coming of Christ according to their 'primary 
sense, are so many obstacles in the way of a 
system, which is founded in obscurity, he endea¬ 
vours to remove those obstacles by saying, that 
whatever prophecies do relate to the Messiah in 
their primary sense, are delivered in such figu¬ 
rative terms , as to produce the same obscurity, 
which is produced by secondary senses. But this 
attempt to remove the acknowledged obstacles is 
by no means satisfactory. For however figurative 
the use of single words in any passage may be, yet 
if the passage itself is interpreted literally, as the 
primary sense requires, we shall still obtain a deter¬ 
minate sense. We shall obtain the sense, conveyed 
by the words of the passage: and the meaning of 
each word, whether literal or figurative, will be 
ascertained by the context. Let the terms there¬ 
fore of any passage be as figurative, as the argument 
may require, yet the primary sense of that passage 
can never be subject to the same obscurity, which 
envelops a mystical or secondary sense. It is im¬ 
possible, that a sense, which the words of the 
passage do convey, should be equally concealed 
from the view of the reader, with a meaning, 
which the words of the passage do not convey. 
The system in question therefore is irreconcileable 
with the notion of prophecies, which predict the 


454 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

coming of Christ in a 'primary sense. And the 
consequences of rejecting that notion are suffi¬ 
ciently apparent from the preceding Lecture. 

Another difficulty, under which the system 
labours is this; that the existence of a thing is 
argued from the supposed propriety of the thing. 
But there are hundreds of things, of which we 
might plausibly shew, that they would properly 
have taken place, not one of which ever has taken 
place. Even therefore if it be granted , that 
a passage of the Old Testament, which literally 
relates to one event, has a moral fitness for re¬ 
lation to another event, that moral fitness will 
not establish the existence of such relation. But 
let the inference be allowed, and the existence 
of the secondary sense admitted , it will still be 
of no use to us, unless we have the means of 
discovering that sense. And how shall we dis¬ 
cover that sense by the logical propriety or 
moral fitness, which we ascribe to it? These are 
qualities which attach to so many things, that 
they can never lead to the discovery of any one 
thing. If we say, that the secondary sense is 
determined by a reference to the Christian Dispen¬ 
sation, there are again so many objects of reference 
in the Christian Dispensation, that we shall be 
still at a loss for the particular application. In the 
application of secondary senses we are concerned, 


LECTURE X. 


455 


not with the comparison of some event with a sense 
already known , hut with the comparison of some 
event with a sense, which is to be discovered , and 
discovered by its relation to that event. Conse¬ 
quently, if different interpreters select different 
events for the objects of comparison, as they 
undoubtedly will, unless they abide by some com¬ 
mon authority, they may agree in the opinion, 
that a passage of the Old Testament has a secon¬ 
dary sense, but they will differ in opinion with 
respect to the question, what that secondary sense 
7'eally is. 


II. 

After all then, it appears that there is no 
system whatever , by which we can either establish 
the existence of secondary senses, or by which, 
on the supposition of their existence, we can 
discover their real meaning . We must be con¬ 
tented, therefore, as at the beginning of the 
preceding Lecture, to resolve the question of 
secondary senses, into a question of authority. 
In whatever case a passage of the Old Testament, 
which according to its strict and literal sense, 
relates to some earlier event in the Jewish history, 
is yet applied, either by Christ , or by an Apostle 
of Christ, to what happened in their days; and 
moreover, is so applied, as to indicate, that the 


456 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

passage is prophetic; of such passage we must 
conclude on their authority, that beside its plain 
and primary sense, it has also a remote or secon¬ 
dary sense. The difficulties, which no human 
system can remove, are in such cases removed by 
Divine Power; the discoveries, which human 
reason attempts in vain, are there unfolded by 
divine intelligence; and the same divine authority, 
which communicated the prophecy, interposes to 
explain the prophecy. Though we ourselves are 
unable to discover any other meaning in a Hebrew 
prophecy, than that which the words themselves 
convey by their own proper import; yet, when 
we have such authority for the opinion, that 
beside the plain or primary sense, which the 
words convey to us, they have also a remote or 
hidden sense, which the words do not convey to 
us, it would be presumptuous to question the 
existence of that sense, by opposing the result of 
our own researches to the decisions of unerring 
wisdom. 

Notwithstanding the difficulties therefore, 
which attend the notion of secondary senses in 
general, we must allow, that there are some pas¬ 
sages of the Old Testament, which really have 
a secondary sense. But, since in every instance, 
where a passage of the Old Testament has a 
secondary sense, the existence of that secondary 


LECTURE X. 


457 


sense depends entirely on the divine authority, 
which has ascribed it to the passage, we must 
wholly confine the application of a secondary 
sense to those particular passages, to which a 
secondary sense has been ascribed by divine au¬ 
thority. There is no supposed logical propriety, 
no supposed moral fitness, which can either esta¬ 
blish the existence, or lead to the discovery, of 
such senses. It is authority, and authority alone; 
though we may fairly presume from the very exer¬ 
cise of such authority, that in every instance where 
a secondary sense is applied by such authority, 
there is a moral fitness for the application. But 
then the application does not depend on such 
moral fitness: it depends on the authority itself. 
And since this authority is confined to individual 
cases , the doctrine of secondary senses is reducible 
to no system . As in the relation of types to 
antitypes we cannot go beyond those particular 
examples, which are ratified by divine authority, 
so in every instance the same divine authority 
must be produced, before we can recognise, in a 
prophecy of the Old Testament, both a primary 
and a secondary sense. 

Indeed, if we once transgress the limit pre¬ 
scribed by this authority, it will be difficult to 
find any limit to the introduction of secondary 
senses. For since the secondary sense of a pas- 


458 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 


sage is a sense, which the words do not convey 
of themselves , it is manifest that, as soon as we 
begin to trust in our own interpretation, we shall 
interpret without rule or guide. Though no pas¬ 
sage can have more than one grammatical mean¬ 
ing, yet, as soon as we begin to indulge ourselves 
in the invention of mystical meanings, it is im¬ 
possible to say, where we shall stop. We shall 
come at length to that wantonness of interpreta¬ 
tion, which is displayed by most of the Jewish 
Commentators, and by many among the Christ¬ 
ian Fathers. We have already seen, that there 
is no analogy between the interpretation of pro¬ 
phecy and the interpretation of allegory, unless 
indeed it should so happen that an allegory was 
meant to be prophetic , which however is not its 
usual character. But such was the fondness for 
allegorical interpretation, that instead of confi¬ 
ning it to allegory itself both Jewish and Christ¬ 
ian Commentators have extended it to history 
and prophecy, where it is wholly inapplicable. 
When allegorical interpretation is employed where 
it properly belongs, namely, in the interpretation 
of a real allegory, there is always a connexion 
between the literal and the allegorical sense. 
There is always a clue , which leads us from one 
sense to the other. But if we endeavour to find 
an allegorical sense, either in history or in pro¬ 
phecy , we endeavour to find a sense, with which 


LECTURE X. 


459 


the literal sense is wholly unconnected. The 
sense therefore will be supplied by mere imagina¬ 
tion: and not only will different interpreters 
invent different senses, but even the same inter¬ 
preter may invent as many as he pleases. Indeed 
there have been Jewish Commentators, who have 
boasted, that they could discover seventy Midra- 
shim, or mystical meanings in one sentence. Some 
limit therefore is absolutely necessary: and enough 
has been already said to shew, that the only limit, 
in which we can confide, is the limit assigned by 
the authority of Christ and his Apostles. 

This appeal to authority, as the foundation of 
secondary senses, is consistent also with the plan, 
which is adopted in these Lectures. For it has 
been already shewn, that there are prophecies, 
which foretel the coming of Christ, according to 
their literal and primary sense. By these prophe¬ 
cies, united with the argument from miracles, 
we establish the divine authority of Christ and 
his Apostles, independently of secondary senses. 
When we appeal therefore to their authority in 
proof of secondary senses, we are not liable to 
the charge of arguing in a circle. Such a charge 
applies only to those, who, while they undertake 
to prove the truth of our religion from prophecy , 
yet argue only on the supposition of secondary 
senses. For, as the existence of secondary senses 


460 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 


depends on the authority of Christ and his Apo- 
tles, we cannot argue from those senses to the 
truth of our religion without taking for granted 
the thing to he proved. But, on the other hand, 
though we cannot apply them to that particular 
purpose, there are other purposes, to which they 
may he applied. For though they prove nothing 
by themselves , yet when combined with those 
prophecies, which relate to the Messiah in their 
‘primary sense, they serve at least to illustrate 
that unity of design, which connects the Jewish 
with the Christian Dispensation. 

If we further undertake to examine, what 
particular passages of the New Testament afford 
examples of prophecy applied in a secondary sense, 
we shall find it to he a question, in which there 
ever has been, and probably ever will be a diver¬ 
sity of opinion. For not only are commentators 
at variance on the question, what are literal pro¬ 
phecies of our Saviour, and what are not, but 
even they who are agreed on this previous ques¬ 
tion, are still at variance as to the question, what 
appellation shall be given to those passages, which 
are applied to the period of our Saviour’s minis¬ 
try, and yet literally belong to another period. 
That there are such passages we cannot doubt: 
and we may allege, as an instance, that passage 
in the thirty-first Chapter of Jeremiah, which is 


LECTURE X. 


461 


applied to the massacre of the children at Beth¬ 
lehem. The words of Jeremiah are, * A voice 

* was heard in Hamah, lamentation, and bitter 
‘ weeping: Rahel weeping for her children, re- 
‘ fused to he comforted for her children, because 
‘ they were not. Thus saith the Lord, Refrain 
6 thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from 
‘ tears: for thy work shall be rewarded saith the 
‘ Lord, and they shall come again from the land 

* of the enemy.’ This passage evidently relates 
to the carrying away of the Jews into captivity, 
and their future return. For it appears from 
the fortieth chapter of Jeremiah, that Ramah 
was the place, to which Nebuzar-adan, the cap¬ 
tain of Nebuchadnezzar’s guard, first brought his 
captives from Jerusalem. According to its literal 
meaning therefore it is obviously a prophecy of 
a totally different event from the massacre of the 
children in Bethlehem by order of Herod. Nor 
do we perceive how it can be a prophecy of this 
event even in a secondary sense. For not only 
were Ramah and Bethlehem two distinct places, 
the one lying as far to the north as the other to 
the south of Jerusalem, but the consolation, 
afforded to Rahel, that her children should come 
again, was a consolation, which could not be 
afforded to the mothers of the murdered children 
in Bethlehem. A comparison therefore of the 
sorrow, expressed in the one case, with the sor- 


462 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 


row, which was felt in the other, appears at least 
to constitute the sole ground of application. Such 
applications of passages in the Old Testament to 
events recorded in the New, various writers, for 
instance Bishop Kidder in his Demonstration of 
the Messias, and Dr. Nicholls in his Conference 
with a Theist, have called by the name of accom¬ 
modation. But other writers have asserted that 
even such passages are prophecies, at least in a 
secondary sense, of the event, to which they are 
applied. The very passage, which we have been 
just considering, is introduced with the words, 
* Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by 
‘ Jeremy the prophet.’ Hence it has been infer¬ 
red, that St. Matthew, who quoted the passage, 
regarded it as a prophecy at least in some sense, 
since the use of the term ‘fulfilled’ implies a pre¬ 
diction of that event, in which it was fulfilled. 
And if in the opinion of an inspired Apostle any 
passage of the Old Testament was a prediction 
of that event to which he himself applied it, we 
must conclude, that such passage really was a 
prediction of that event, though we ourselves 
could not have discovered it. To diminish how¬ 
ever the difficulties, which we should still feel on 
such occasions, a distinction has been made by 
some Commentators, especially by Professor Dathe 
in the Notes to his Latin translation of the He¬ 
brew Bible, between quotations introduced with 


LECTURE X. 


463 


the formula, ‘ Then was fulfilled,’ and quotations 
introduced with the formula, 6 This was done that 
* it might be fulfilled.’ Though quotations there¬ 
fore of the latter kind are quotations of prophecies , 
relating either in a primary or in a secondary 
sense, to those very events, to which they are 
applied, quotations of the former kind are sup¬ 
posed to have been intended for nothing more, 
than what is called an accommodation , or an appli¬ 
cation of a passage to a corresponding event. And 
this distinction has really a foundation in the 
practice of the Jews themselves. For Surenhu- 
sius in his third Thesis De formulis allegandi^ 
has quoted Rabbinical expressions corresponding 
to the expressions of the New Testament, ‘Then 
4 was fulfilled,’ and c this was done that it might 
4 be fulfilled.’ And it appears, that the latter 
expression only was used with passages, which 
were quoted by way of argument, or proof. But 
if the term accommodation be applied, as it is by 
some writers, to passages of the Old Testament, 
which are quoted in the New Testament with 
the strong expression, c this was done that it might 
4 be fulfilled,’ the use of it in such cases is neither 
warranted by the practice of the Jewish writers, 
nor can be consonant with the design of the 
sacred writers themselves. Passages so intro¬ 
duced must be regarded as real prophecies, at 
least in a secondary, if not in a primary sense. 


464 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

To use therefore the term accommodation for 
the passages in general , which are taken from 
the Old Testament, and applied to the events 
of the New, is to carry the principle of accommo¬ 
dation to an extent, which it will not bear. Nor 
can the term * secondary sense’ be applied in 
that general manner: for there are certainly pro¬ 
phecies in the Old Testament, which relate to 
the Messiah in a primary sense. Indeed, if all 
the passages, which are quoted as prophecies in the 
New Testament, were mere accommodations, they 
would cease to be prophecies altogether. They 
would not be prophecies even in name . And 
though passages, which are prophetic in a secon¬ 
dary sense, are still prophecies, yet if all the 
prophecies relating to the Messiah predicted the 
coming of Christ in a mere mystical or secondary 
sense, we should not have that sure word of 
prophecy, which both our Saviour and his Apo¬ 
stles have taught us to expect. 

Let us now recapitulate, and place in one 
point of view, the preceding inquiries into the 
prophecies relating to the Messiah. Many of 
these prophecies relate to him according to their 
literal and primary sense. From these prophecies, 
in conjunction with miracles, we can argue to the 
divine authority of Christ and his Apostles. Their 
authority being thus established , we can appeal 


LECTURE X. 


465 


to that authority, as evidence, that any passage 
of the Old Testament, literally relating to some 
event under the Jewish dispensation, but quoted 
by them as a prophecy of some event under the 
Christian dispensation, is a prophecy of that 
event in a secondary sense. But as not all the 
passages of the Old Testament, which literally 
relate to events under the Jewish dispensation, 
are in their application to events under the 
Christian dispensation applied in the same man¬ 
ner, we must endeavour to distinguish the cases, 
in which the Sacred Writers themselves intended 
to give examples of prophecy, from the cases, in 
which they meant only to quote for the purpose 
of similitude or illustration. In the former, we 
have examples of prophecy in a secondary sense: 
in the latter alone can it be said, we have ex¬ 
amples of accommodation. 


Go 


LECTURE XI. 


The principles of biblical interpretation 
having been explained in the ten preceding 
Lectures, it now remains, that, agreeably to the 
plan proposed in the first Preliminary Lecture, 
we take an historical view of biblical interpreta¬ 
tion, according to the different modes which 
prevailed in the different ages of Christianity. 
In describing the Criticism of the Bible the 
historical view preceded the rules of Criticism, 
because a history of Criticism is a history of 
facts , and the rules of Criticism are founded 
on those facts. But a history of Interpretation 
is a history of opinions , which may properly 
follow the principles of Interpretation. 

The earliest interpreters of Scripture were 
the Jews, who, because it is divinely inspired, 
considered the interpretation of it as subject to 
different rules from those, which are applicable 
to other books 1 . They considered therefore the 


1 That this is a mistaken notion has been already shewn 
at the end of the third Lecture, 



LECTURE XI. 


467 


words of Scripture as implying more than was 
conveyed by their literal sense, whence they per¬ 
petually sought for remote and mystical mean¬ 
ings 2 . 

Philo, a Greek Jew of Alexandria, at the 
beginning of the first century, had an additional 
motive to a departure from the literal sense of 
Scripture. He imbibed the principles of the new 
Platonic philosophy, which was in high estima¬ 
tion among the Alexandrian Greeks. And, as 
according to this philosophy the writings of 
Homer were explained allegorically, so Philo 
applied allegorical interpretation to the writings 
of Moses, and thus converted into fable what 
was meant for real history 3 . 

In the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, the first 
of the Apostolic Fathers, the author interprets the 
Old Testament in the mystical manner, which was 
then familiar to the Jews. His expositions are 


2 According to Waehner, in his Antiquitates Ebraeorum, 
T. I. p. 353 . the Jews supposed, that in the words of Scripture 
there was a sensus innatus, and a sensus illatus. And as the 
sensus mysticus was included in the sensus innatus, we may 
easily imagine the variety of senses, which might be thus 
extracted from the same passage. 

3 The mischievous effects of applying allegorical interpre¬ 
tation to real history have been explained in the seventh 
Lecture. 


G G 2 



468 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 


so many examples of the Jewish Medrash. And 
this mode of interpretation he dignifies with the 
appellation of riw*? 4 . The Shepherd of Hermas 
is almost destitute of Scripture quotations, and 
affords therefore little or no means of discovering 
the author’s principles of interpretation. The 
first Epistle of Clement (the only one which 
has any claim to authenticity) contains various 
quotations from Scripture, but generally without 
much explanation. Nor do the Epistles ascribed 
to Ignatius and Polycarp afford much matter for 
a history of biblical interpretation. 

Justin Martyr, who was born in Samaria at 
the beginning of the second century, and was 
a Platonic philosopher before his conversion to 
Christianity, was, like other disciples of that 
school, attached to allegorical interpretation. He 
considered the words of Scripture, especially in 
the Old Testament, as containing mystical mean¬ 
ings, which were concealed from the view of those, 
who regarded only the literal sense. This appears 
from various observations, which he has made in 
his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 5 . And as 


4 Barnabse Ep. c. 6. Tom. i. p. 18. ed. Cotelerii. On the 
words t* \eyei tj Tvuvk pad ere, his Commentator observes, 
scilicet quis sensus spiritualis et mysticus. 

5 P. 285. ed. Thirl by, he says iroWov ? \6yovs tous aVoKCKa- 
\vfx/xevm f kcu ev Trapafto\u7<; vj pv art] piots, rj iv (rv[x/36\ots epytav 

\€\€yfA€vov<:. 



LECTURE XI. 


469 


this Dialogue was composed for the purpose of 
convincing the Jews, that Jesus was the pro¬ 
mised Messiah, his arguments were founded on 
principles of interpretation, which the Jews them¬ 
selves admitted. But we must not confound, 
either in the works of Justin, or in those of 
any other ancient Father, an allegorical inter¬ 
pretation of historical facts with an application 
of types to their antitypes. An allegorical inter¬ 
pretation of historical facts defeats the very object 
of the historian, who intended that what he wrote 
should be considered as truth. But typical in¬ 
terpretation, though it is regarded as a kind of 
allegorical interpretation, produces very different 
effects. The application of a type to its antitype 
leaves the truth of the history unimpaired. It 
is not the 'principle therefore of typical interpre¬ 
tation, which is liable to objection, but the excess, 
to which it has been carried. And from this 
excess Justin Martyr is certainly not free * * * * 6 . 


\€\€yneuov$. At p. 376. ravra [xerct 7 roWov vov Ka\ pva-Ttjpiov 

yejove. And at p. 414. Aoyou? he Tti/a<? ov <? p rj (XTrepvrjpovevaa 

mporepov, e’liroip av aprc ela\ he elptjpevoi v7ro tov tucttov depa- 

7 roi/TO? Mftxrew? e7riKeKa\vppev(a<s. 

6 The limits, which it is necessary to observe in regard to 
types and antitypes, have been explained in the sixth Lecture, 
p. 374 — 379 . of this edition. If those limits are disregarded, 
every accidental, and even imaginary resemblance, may give 
rise to types and antitypes. Hence Justin discovered, not only 
that Moses with his hands extended (Exod. xvii. 12 .) was a 
type of the Cross, but that the Cross was typified by the tree 

of 



470 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

The next among the Greek Fathers, who 
is worthy of notice, is Irenasus, who wrote in 
the latter half of the second century. Though 
a native Greek, as appears from his name and 
his language, he was Bishop of Lyons in 
Gaul. He justly objects to the allegorical in¬ 
terpretations of the Gnostics, though his own 
interpretations are sometimes as fanciful as those 
of his opponents. But the principle of in¬ 
terpretation, on which Irenasus chiefly insists, 
is a kind of Traditio hermeneutica, to which 
he appeals as authority for the interpretation of 
Scripture. His opinion on this subject is de¬ 
livered in his fourth book against heresies, c. 36. 
He says, Quapropter eis, qui in Ecclesia sunt, 
Presbyteris obaudire oportet, his qui successionem 
habent ab Apostolis, sicut ostendimus; qui cum 
Episcopates successione charisma veritatis certum 
secundum placitum Patris acceperunt 7 . In the 


of life in the Garden of Eden, the rod of Moses, &c. p. 325 — 
335 . ed. Thirlby. And Theophilus of Antioch, a contemporary 
of Justin considered the three days, which preceded the crea¬ 
tion of the two great lights (Gen. i. 14 .) as rviroi Ttjs 'rpidhos. 
Ad Autolycum Lib. ii. p. 106. ed. Oxon. 1684. In p. 105 . 
speaking of the creation of the sun and moon, he says, TCtVTa 
Be Bery pa kcu tvttov eTre^ei peyaXov /xvarrjplov' 6 •yap rjXios eV 
tu7to) deov ecrnv, tj Be' creXrjvrj dvdpu)7rov. With the same ease 
Pope Innocent III discovered, that the sun was a type of 
papal, and the moon of regal authority. 

7 P. 262. ed. Massuet. This Chapter, with the exception 
of a few fragments, exists only in the old Latin translation. 



LECTURE XI. 


471 


same chapter he adds, Ubi igitur charismata 
Domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, 
apud quos est ea, quae est ab Apostolis, Ecclesiae 
successio, et id quod est sanum et irreprobabile 
conversationis, et inadulteratum, et incorruptible 
sermonis constat. Hi enim et earn, quae est in 
unum Deum qui omnia fecit, fidem nostram cus- 
todiunt; et earn, quae est in Filium Dei, dilec- 
tionem adaugent, qui tantas dispositiones propter 
nos fecit, et Scripturcis sine periculo nobis ex - 
ponunt , &c. 8 

Irenaeus appeals also to a Kavwv rrjs dXt)6elas 
or Regula veritatis. In his first Book against 
Heresies, c. 9- §• 4. he says, Ouro Se Kal 6 rov 

Kavova Trj$ aXrjQeias aKXivrj ev eavrtp Kare^cov, ov Sia 
rov ficnrTiar/JLaTo$ elXrjcfre, rd /ulgv €k twv ypacpoov 
ovo/mara Kal ras* Xe^eie kuI Tas* 7r apafioXas eiayva)- 
creTai 9 . And he concludes the chapter with the 
words, 6 /c tovtou yap aKpificos avviSelv ea-rai , Kal 
7 rpo rrj$ airo^ei^ew^f fiefiaiav TYjv vi ro ’Efc/cX^ends 

Kripvaaoixevyjv dXrjOelav 3 Kal rrjv inro tovtwv Trepnre- 
Troirjuevrjv \f/ev()r)yop'Kiv. Having thus concluded the 
ninth chapter, he begins the tenth with the 
following words: 'H fiev yap ’E/c«X> 7 <xcd> Ka’nrep KaO 
oXrjs T?j$ oiKov/xevrjs ews irepaTitiv Trjs yrjs d L6a7rapfX6vrj , 
«7ra pa Se twv Ai roaroXcov Kal twv e/ca vwv niaOrjrwv 


8 Ibid. p. 2 63. 


9 P. 46. ed. Massuet. 



472 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

7r apaXafiovaa rrjv ek eva Beov, irarepa iravroKparopa, 
tov TreTTOirjKora tov ovpavov ml ty\v yrjv, Kal ras 
OaXacrcra?, Kal Travra ra ev avrois, ttlcttiv' kcll eis 
iva Xpiarov Irjcrovv , tov vlov tov Qeov, k. t. X. 10 
He proceeds with this formulary of faith through¬ 
out the first section; and this ancient formulary 
of faith accords in substance with the correspond¬ 
ing articles in the Apostles’ Creed. In the 22nd 
chapter of the same book, he says, Cum teneamus 
autem nos Regulam veritatis, id est quia sit unus 
Deus omnipotens, qui omnia condidit per verbum 
suum, &c. n His Regula veritatis therefore was 
a formulary of faith, which accorded with the 
Apostles’ Creed. 

Here we may introduce the Recognitions 
Clementis: which were written by some author 
of the second century, and shew the sentiments 
which then prevailed in the Latin Church, re¬ 
specting biblical interpretation. In the tenth 
book, c. 42. we find the following passage 12 : Non 
sensum, quern extrinsecus attuleris, alienum et 

10 Ibid. p. 48 . 

11 P. 98. ed. Massuet. This Chapter exists only in the old 
Latin translation. 

12 Cotelerii Patr. Apost. T. i. p. 591 . The work exists 
only in Latin, though it is said to be a translation from the 
Greek of Clement. Cotelerius in his Judicium de libris 
Recognitionum, p. 484 . considers it as a production of the 
second century. 



LECTURE XI. 


473 


extraneum, debes quaerere, quem ex Scripturarum 
auctoritate confirmes, sed ex ipsis Scripturis seu- 
sum capere veritatis. Et ideo oportet ab eo 
intelligentiam discere Scripturarum, qui earn a 
majoribus , secundum veritatem sibi traditam , 
servat, ut et ipse posset ea, quae recte suscepit, 
competenter adserere. Cum enim ex divinis 
Scripturis integram quis susceperit et firm am 
Regulam veritatis, absurdum non erit, &c. The 
Regula veritatis therefore, though previously 
called Veritas tradita, is here called Regula sus- 
cepta ex divinis Scripturis. Such also was the 
Regula veritatis of Irenaeus. It was not an au¬ 
thority distinct from Scripture, but Scripture 
itself interpreted by authority. 

The order of time now brings us to Clement 
of Alexandria, who wrote toward the end of the 
second century. According to Epiphanius he was 
a native of Athens, but he was educated at 
Alexandria, where he afterwards resided. His 
writings are replete with quotations from Greek 
philosophers and Greek poets; but he was chiefly 
attached to that species of the Platonic philosophy 
which prevailed at Alexandria. Hence arose his 
predilection for allegorical interpretation, which 
he has carried to the greatest excess. Even the 
ten commandments, which were unquestionably 
given as religious and moral precepts, to be taken 


474 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

in their literal sense, are explained by Clement 
in a mystical or allegorical sense. The fifth 
commandment for instance, relates according to 
Clement, not to our natural parents, but to our 
heavenly Father, and the divine Gnosis. In 
his Stromata, Lib. VI. C. 16. *0 Se 'TrefX'TTTos e^rjs 

earn Xoyos Trepl Ti/j.rjs 7 rarpos Kai jAtjTpos' 7ra Tepa 
Kai Kvpiov tov Oedv Xeyei aa(pm 13 . And lie adds, 
/irjTijp Se ov%, cos rives, r\ over la e£ ijs yeyovayiev , 
ovS } ws erepoi eKSedcoicaaiv, r) eKKXqcria 14 , aXX rj Oe'ia 
yvioais Kai <To(j)ia . He then gives the following 
interpretation of the seventh commandment. 

Moi^eta S’ ec ttlv, edv tis 3 KaTaXnrcdv Tijv eKKXycriacrTi- 
k^v Kai a\r]Oi] yvwaiv, Kai Trjv 'irepl Oeov SidXrjiJsiv, ei ti 
T rjv fjirj 'irpoariKovGav ep^yrat dsevSrj Sdj~av. These 
examples are sufficient to shew the principles of 
interpretation, which were adopted by Clement. 
Indeed it appears, from what he says in the 
15th chapter of the same book, that the plain 
and literal meaning of Scripture, which he calls 
rj ^f/iXij dvayvwcris, and r] 7 rpos to ypa/m/aa dvayvioais , 
produces only elementary faith, t^v tt’kjtiv otoix^v 
rd^iv expvcrav 15 . He immediately adds, Si o Kai rj 
TTpos to ypdfj./ia avayvwcns dXXrjyopeiTai. I _ Ie then 
recommends Trjv SiairTv^iv Trjv yvoodTucyv tcov 

13 P. 816. ed. Potter. 

14 Hence it appears, that the fifth commandment had 
already received an allegorical interpretation. 

15 Ibid. p. 806. 



LECTURE XI. 


475 


y pa(j)WV lC> , Trp0K07TT0V(jr]S T7]9 7Tl(JT6U)$ 9 whence 

we may infer that literal interpretation was 
suited to those in whom it was intended to 
produce only elementary faith, and that as 
their faith advanced, they should he admitted, 
by the aid of allegorical interpretation, to the 
mysteries of the true Gnosis. This would re¬ 
semble the practice of the Greek philosophers, 
who had an esoteric philosophy for the initiated, 
and an exoteric for the uninitiated, of which 
Clement himself has given the following descrip¬ 
tion. Aey overt Se nett o\ ApiGToreXov 9 , ret juey ecrcore- 
piKa eivat tcov crvyypa/m/xdTiov avrtov, tcjl Se koivcl Te 
/ecu e^coTepuca' dXXd Kai o't ra nivcmjpia Oe/uevot, 
(poXoaofpoi or/T69, Tct aurwv ^oy/xara rots* fxvOois /care- 
-^werav, ware fir/ ctVat diraat &/\a 17 . 

But notwithstanding his regard for the Greek 
philosophy and his propensity to allegorical in¬ 
terpretation, he still appeals, like Irenaeus, to 
a Kavwv njs d.XrjQeia's , which he terms also kclvwv 
eiacXricTiao-TiKos. To enable the reader to form 
some judgement of his real meaning I will quote 


16 This BtaVru^t? 7i/<o(7TiK»7 he calls also tj 71/(00-/? rj ayta Bid 
Ttjs tcov ypaepcov ef^^Veco?. Ibid. ibid. Also in p. 805. he 
represents the truth as known only to?? efe yvcocriv ixe/xvtuxevois. 

17 Stromat. Lib. v. c. 9- P* 681. ed. Potter. He had pre¬ 
viously described the similar practice adopted by the followers 
of Pythagoras, Plato, and Zeno. 



476 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE, 


the following passages. He describes those who 
reject the true doctrine (rrjv aXrjOrj SiSaa-KaXlav) as 
persons, oi /jli ) /car d^lav tov 0eoo Kal tov K vp'iov ra9 
ypacpas Xeyovres re Kal 7rapa$t$6vT€$ 9 and then 
proceeds in the following words: napaOr/Kt) yap 
cnroSiSonevr] 0e<£ rj Kara ty\v tov Kuplov SiSaaKaXiav 
$ia twv AttocttoXwv avrov ttjs Oeoarefiovs 7rapa$ocrew$ 
crvveols T€ Kal avvdcTKrjcn^. O $e aKov€T€ et9 to 01 ) 9 ’ 
€7TlK€KpVIULIUL€Vm SrjXoVOTl KOI €V /IVCTTrjp'nt)' TO. TOiaVTa 
yap et9 to 009 XeyeaOai aXXqyopeiTat * eiri twv Sw/ua- 
twv, (prj(Ti 9 Krjpv^are’ /j.eyaXo(ppovw$ re e/cSe^ajtxeyot, Kal 
v\j/rjydpm TrapaSiSovres, Kal Kara toV TJ 79 aXrjQe'ias Ka¬ 
vova $iacra<povvT€$ Ta '9 ypa<pa 9 18 . A few lines after¬ 
wards he says, ''AnravTa opOa evunriov twv gvvigvtwv , 
<prjcrlv rj ypa<pq‘ tovtcgti twv ocroi \nv avTov 19 aa(prj- 
viaOe^crav twv ypafpwv e^rjyrjaiv /caret tov eKKXrjGiaGTiKov 
Kavova eKSe^ojuevoi $iaorw<£ovcri’ Kavwv Se eKKXrjcriaGTiKos 
rj GvvipVia Kal rj av/Kpwv'ia vo/xov re Kal 7rpo(j)r]Twv Trj 
/cara Trjv tov K vpiov irapovcr'iav Trapaiihofxevri SiaOqKrj 20 . 
According to Clement therefore the Kavwv €kkXtj- 
Criaa-TIKOS (and consequently the Kavwv aXrjOelas) 
was founded on the harmony of the law and the 
prophets with the New Covenant. Hence it 
follows that his Kavwv aXrjQelas or Regula veritatis 


18 Strom. Lib. vi. c. 15. p. 802. ed. Potter. See also p. 806„ 
where he speaks of rj <yviocrriKrj aywytj Kara rov rtj9 aAtjdeias 

t 

Kavova. 

19 Kuptov is here understood. 

20 Ibid. p. 803. 



LECTURE XI. 


477 


was professedly founded on Scripture. Whether 
Clement himself has promoted the harmony of 
the Old and New Testament by his allegorical 
interpretations may indeed be fairly questioned. 

Let us now consider the principles of Ter¬ 
tullian, the most ancient, and one of the most 
important, among the Latin Fathers. Though 
contemporary with Clement of Alexandria, he 
was not addicted to allegorical interpretation. 
He felt none of the difficulties, which pressed 
on the Fathers of the Alexandrian school, who 
were Greek philosophers, while they were Christian 
Fathers, and endeavoured to reconcile their phi¬ 
losophy with the Bible by an allegorical inter¬ 
pretation of the latter. Tertullian allows indeed 
allegorical interpretation in prophecy: but even 
there only in certain cases. He says in his 
Treatise de resurrectione carnis, c. 20. Non sem¬ 
per, nec in omnibus allegorica forma est prophetici 
eloquii, sed interdum et in quibusdam 21 . 

The Rule, by which Tertullian appears to 
have been chiefly guided in the interpretation 
of Scripture, is that which he calls the Regula 
fidei. It is important, that we should clearly 
understand the meaning of this rule, especially 


31 Tom. hi. p. 249- ed. Sender. 



478 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

as it appears to be very different from what it 
really is. Of this Rule Tertullian says in his 
treatise de praescriptionibus hasreti corum, c. 13: 
Hasc Regula a Christo, ut probabitur, instituta, 
nullas habet apud nos quasstiones, nisi quas baereses 
inferunt, et quas liaereticos faciunt. In the next 
chapter, referring to Luke xviii. 42. be adds, 
Fides tua (inquit) te salvum fecit; non exercitatio 
Scripturarum. Fides in Regula posita est: and 
he concludes by saying, adversus Regulam nihil 
scire omnia scire est. In c. 19. he says, non ad 
Scripturas provocandum est: and he concludes 
with the words ubi apparuerit esse veritatem 
disciplinas et fidei Christianas, illic est veritas 
Scripturarum, et expositionum, et omnium tra- 
ditionum Christianarum. Lastly in c. 37. he 
represents the Regula fidei as a Rule, quam 
Ecclesia ab Apostolis, Apostoli a Christo, Christus 
a Deo tradidit. 

In consequence of this description, the Regula 
fidei of Tertullian has been compared with the 
Tradition of the Church of Rome, that is with 
the Doctrma tradita (for there are various kinds 
of Tradition 22 ), which is called by Bellarmine 
Verbum Dei non scriptum, and in the Class Book 


22 Nothing has created more perplexity in arguing about 
Tradition, than the confusion of one kind with another. 



LECTURE XI. 


479 


of the College at Maynooth, Traditiones divinse 
et apostolicse 2j . This kind of Tradition is cer¬ 
tainly employed by the Church of Rome as a 
Regula fidei, partly for the purpose of explaining 
what according to that Church would he other¬ 
wise ambiguous in Scripture, and partly for the 
purpose of supplying, what the same Church con¬ 
siders as defective. Yet the Rules themselves are 
of a totally different character. The Church of 
Rome considers the Doctrina tradita, or the 
Verbum Dei non scriptum, as a Rule of faith, 
which is not only distinct from, hut wholly 
independent of, Scripture. An appeal is made 
to it, not merely for the purpose of determining 
the sense of what is already contained (or supposed 
to he contained) in the Verbum Dei scriptum: 
its authority is quoted for doctrines, even where 
no attempt is made to discover them in Scripture 24 . 
But if beside the passages above quoted we 
consider what Tertullian has elsewhere said of 
the Regula fidei, we shall find, that like the 
Regula veritatis of Irenaeus, and the Kavcov dXrjOe'icts 
of Clement, the Rule has no other foundation 
than in Scripture 25 . 


23 See this subject fully explained in the Comparative View 
of the Churches of England and Rome. Ch. I. and II. 

24 See the examples given in the Comparative View, 
Ch. II. Sect. 3. 

25 Yet so anxious are the Romish writers to make their 
Tradition the Regula fidei of the ancient Fathers, that Massuet 



480 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

As Irenaeus appeals to a formulary of faith, 
which accords in substance with the Creed called 
the Apostles’ Creed, Tertullian has done the same. 
In his treatise de virginibus velandis, c. 1. he 
says, Regula quidem fidei una omnino est, sola, 
immobilis, et irreformabilis, credendi scilicet in 
unicum Deum omnipotentem , mundi conditorem 9 
et filium ejus Jesum Christum , natum ex virgine 
Maria , crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato , tertid die 
resuscitatum a mortuis , receptum in coelis , seden - 
tem nunc ad dexteram Patris , venturum judicare 
vivos et mortuos per carnis etiam resurrectionem ™. 
These are articles of faith corresponding with 
those of the Apostles’ Creed; and they are so 
far from resting on the authority of Tradition, 
that all of them are founded on the clear and 
literal interpretation of the Verbum Dei scriptum. 
There is no pretence therefore for comparing the 
Regula fidei of Tertullian with the Doctrina 
tradita of the Church of Rome. When he ap¬ 
pealed to it in controversies with the heretics 


in his Dissertationes praeviae in Irenaei Libros, p. cxiii. says, 
In confesso erat apud omnes, non Scripturas tantum, sed 
Traditionem etiam Regulam esse fidei nostrae. 

26 Tom. hi. p. 2. ed. Semler. We find also a similar de¬ 
scription in that very treatise de praescriptionibus haereticorum, 
from which the passages relating to the Regula fidei were 
given in a former paragraph. These passages are preceded 
by a formulary of faith, c. 13. corresponding to the Apostles’ 
Creed, and which Tertullian expressly calls Regula fidei. 



LECTURE XI. 


481 


(for on other occasions he has appealed to Scrip¬ 
ture itself) he has appealed to it, not as an 
authority distinct from Scripture, but as an 
authority founded on Scripture. He appealed to 
it as a Rule, by which in controversies of faith 
the sense of Scripture should be determined. . 

In the third century the most distinguished 
among the Fathers were Origen in the Greek 
Church, and Cyprian in the Latin. As the 
principles of interpretation adopted by Origen 
had very material influence on the interpretations 
of subsequent writers, we must undertake a mi¬ 
nute examination of them, which is the more 
necessary, as they have been involved in some 
obscurity. He compares the sense of Scripture 
with the awfia, the ^ v%rj, and the Tn/eD/xa, which 
according to Plato are the component parts of 
man; whence arise three kinds of interpretation, 
denoted by the epithets aco/xa tocos, yj/u^tKos, and 
Trvev/ ulutikos. In his treatise i repi apxcuv, Lib. IV. 
C. 11. he says, wGirep yap o av0pco7ros auveq-Trjicev eic 
aw/uaros Kal ^v)(tjs nal TTveu/xaros, tov avrov rpoirov 
Kai f] oiicovo/irjOeiGa into tov Gedu els avSpunreov gcd- 
Trjp'iav SoOrjvai y pa(fh} 27 . In reference to this three¬ 
fold division he further says 28 , elal rives 7 pacpal to 


27 Tom. 1. p. 168. ed. Delarue. 

28 Ibid. p. 169. 



482 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 


aco/uanKov ouSa/ixm eyovaai, <Js ev rots Seljjo/uev 9 

eariv ottov olovei rrjv 'J/vyrjv Kal to 7n /ev/ia rrjs ypafprjs 

nova xpt] fyreiv. At other times he includes the 
to y]/u^iKov under the to TrvevnaTiKov, nor is it 
easy to discover the difference between them con¬ 
sidered as modes of interpretation. Hence the 
same sentiment, which he expresses in the words 
just quoted, he expresses in the 20th chapter of 
the same book in the following words. A laKel/ueOa 

yap J/zmels irepl 'iraarj 9 rrjs 6ela$ ypa(j)rj$ 9 on Trdaa 
/ul€v ’e^ei to Trvev/ixoTtKOVy ov rraaa Se to aco/uctri/cov * 
rroWa^ov yap e\ey\erai aovvarov ov to aw/mariKov , 

Origen’s division therefore, may for all practical 
purposes he considered as two-fold, namely, to 
aw/uariKov, and to 7n /ev/iariKov : and he himself 
has most frequently adhered to it. The former, 
he calls to yfnXov ypdppa™ • the latter, which he 
likewise calls '7rvev/xa r riKrj Sujyrjais, he represents 
as leading to heavenly wisdom 31 . Upon the whole 
then we may conclude, that Origen had only two 
modes of interpretation, the grammatical, and the 
spiritual. 

But he speaks of spiritual interpretation under 
three different names. In his Commentary on 

29 Ibid. p. 181. 

30 Ibid. p. 165. He there says that the chief cause of 
heresy is tj ‘ypcupii Kara ra wvevnanna ptj revorjpevn, a’\\’ w? 
irpos to v/'iXoi/ ^pappa e£et\r}pp€»ri. 

31 Ibid. p. 170. 



LECTURE XI. 


483 

St. Matthew, Tom. x. c. 14. he says, ISuotmv ye 

fiaXiarTa ecrri , fijj ciSotwi/ Tpo7roXoyeiVj pt/Se crvvievTwv 
Ta Ttjs a vayooyrjs twv ypcKpwv, aXXa tw ypan/uLCLTi 
yf/iXw 7ri(jT€vovTii)v m . And a few lines afterwards 
he adds, WGirep tov vd/mov dvayivwcTKoov, Kal olkovodv, 
Kal Xeywv artra ecrnv aXXrjyopovfieva, ovtoj Kal to 
evayyeXiov } elSeven, Ttjpovjnevrjs ttj<s Kara rd yevo - 

fxeva laroplas, Trjv eirl ret irveu/nariKa. dirrauTTov ava- 

ywytjv. Hence biblical interpretation, as adopted 
by Origen, has been represented under the four 
heads of grammatical, allegorical, tropological, 
and anagogical. But if we closely examine the 
words of Origen, we shall find, that whatever 
fanciful divisions may have been made by later 
writers, they are not sanctioned by the authority of 
Origen himself. In the first of the two sentences 
quoted in this paragraph, the /uy elSore s Tpo7ro\o7e7i; 
are represented as /utj avievres TCl Trj? avaycoyrjs Twv 
ypa<pwv : and they are equally opposed to the 
7 riGT 6 vovT€s Tip ypd/i/aaTi \j/iX(p. We may infer 
therefore that dvayotyrj and TpoTroXoyla are only 
different names of spiritual interpretation, not 
different kinds of it 33 . In the second of those 


32 Tom. III. p. 458. ed. Delarue. 

33 The term avaywytj was applied to the spiritual sense, 
partly because he, who has passed through the literal sense, 
dvafiaivei eVt rd irveopariKa, and partly because rrepiaipeirai to 
6 Vt no ypdfxfxan .<d\vfx/xa. Both of these explanations are given 
by Origen, T. III. p. 458-459. That the term rpoirokoyla 

h h 2 was 



484 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

two sentences Origen applies dvaywyrj to the 
New Testament, as he applies aWrjyopla to the 
Old Testament, whence we may again infer, that 
they are only different names of the same thing. 
After all then, it appears that Origen employed 
only two kinds of biblical interpretation, namely, 
the grammatical or literal, and the spiritual or 
allegorical. 

The rule which he applied to determine the 
question, where grammatical interpretation should 
or should not, be used, he has given in the passage 


was applied to the spiritual sense, because this sense is ob¬ 
tained by the use of tropes, appears not only from the applica¬ 
tion of it by Justin Martyr (p. 380. 413. ed. Thirlby) but from 
the use which Origen himself has made of the verb rpoiroXoyeu), 
in the place which we have been just considering, and in which 
the irio-Tevovre' ? tw ypap/xaTi are represented as prj etSore? 

TpoiToXo^eiv. In the same page he has given also a specimen 
of tropological interpretation. Ovtw he na\ TpoTroXoytjaeis to , 
Merai/oeTre , nyyme yap tj fiaviXeta tcov ovpavcov. iV ol ypappa- 
Tev ?, tovt€(Ttiv ot rut ypappaTi \j/iX(a tt pocravuTravopevoi, /jl€t a- 
voovvtcs aVo rrjs roiavTteKho^rj<s, padtjrevovrai t rj hid 1 tjcou 
X pi<TTov tov e/xxjyv^ov Xoyov TrvevfxaTiKrj hiahao-KaXia, KaXov/jievy 
(iaaiKela oupavco v. From this specimen it is evident, that the 
notion subsequently prevalent in the Latin Church respecting 
tropological interpretation, as if it were a kind of moral inter¬ 
pretation (t p6iro<; being taken in the sense of mos ), or, as 
Huetius calls it, an interpretation ad informandos mores, has 
no foundation in the works of Origen. TpowoXoyia, like 
dvayutyrj, was only spiritual interpretation under a different 
name. And different names have been mistaken for different 
things. 



LECTURE XI. 


485 


above quoted, from his treatise 7T6pl ap’xjuv, Lib. iy. 
c. 20. where he says that grammatical interpre¬ 
tation (to (TWfxaTtKov) cannot always he applied, 

TroWa^ov yap eXey^erai aSuvarov ov . to awnaTiKov. 

In c. 18. of the same Book, he says, it is necessary 
in the interpretation of the Scriptures, ovyl ra inro 

Ttjs Xej^ews 7re pKTTafxeva fxova eicXa/ifidveiv' eviore tov - 
T(vv, qctov €7r l Ttp prjrw , ovk aXrjOwv , dXXa Kal aXoyiov 
Kal dSumrcov TvyyavovTtov z *. Whenever therefore 
grammatical interpretation produced a sense, which 
in Origen’s opinion was irrational or impossible, 
in other words irrational or impossible according 
to the philosophy, which Origen had learnt at 
Alexandria, he then departed from the literal 
sense. Other writers have done the same thing. 
Scripture has been compared with some kind of 
philosophy supposed to contain the pure deductions 
of reason: and on the ground, that the pure 
deductions of reason must he reconcileable with 
Revelation, the latter has been explained into 
an accordance with the former. But Origen adopts 
allegorical interpretation much less frequently 
than his predecessor Clement. He admits that 
historical, that is, grammatical interpretation, 


34 T. I. p. 180. See also p. 181. Tertullian, on the other 
hand, asserts in his Treatise de Carne Christi, c. 3 . Non potest 
non fuisse quod scriptum est. When he exclaimed in c. 5. 
Certum est quia impossibile, he meant perhaps an impossibility 
resulting from a test which he disregarded. 



486 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 


applies in many more instances, than mere spi¬ 
ritual interpretation : 7 roXX(o irXeiovd earc rd Kara • 
rriv iaroplav aXtiOevo/ieva 7rpocrv(pav6evT(jJV yvp.Vft>v 

TrvevfiariKwu 3 -. And he immediately adds, irdXiv 
re av r'i<j ovk dp eiiroi rrjv Xeyovcrav evroX^v, rlfxa rov 

t 1 \ / ? / ' 

irarepa kui rrjv lu^repa, iva ev aoi yevrjrai , X w r^ 
Tracnfs avayoayrjs xP r l a ’ l / Uir I v rvyxdveiv, Kal rrjprjreav ; 
He rejected therefore the allegorical interpretation 
of the Decalogue, which Clement had adopted 36 . 

On Cyprian, as an Interpreter of Scripture, 
there is but little to say. He has no where 
explained the principles of Interpretation by which 
he was guided. He professes indeed to follow 
Tertullian; but he was much more inclined than 
his master to depart from the literal sense of 
Scripture. He has allowed himself also a latitude 
of interpretation, of which Facundus has given 
a memorable instance. Facundus (Lib. 1 . cap. 3.) 
having quoted 1 John v. 8. proceeds to comment 
on the clause et hi tres unum sunt. As this 
clause immediately follows the words spiritus, 
aqua, et sanguis, it is no easy matter to apply 
the clause to any thing else. But Facundus 


35 Ibid. p. 180. 

36 This appears more fully from his eleventh Homily on 
the Book of Numbers, Tom. II. p. 304. where he says in the 
words of the old Latin translation. Quid opus est in his 
allegoriam quserere, cum scdificet etiam liter a ? 



LECTURE XI. 


487 


appeals to authority , and concludes by saying, 
quod tamen Joannis Apostoli testimonium Beatus 
Cyprianus, Carthaginiensis antistes et martyr, in 
epistola, sive libro, quam de Trinitate scripsit, de 
Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto dictum intelligit. 

The fourth century produced a greater number 
of distinguished writers in the Greek Church, 
than any other. In that century we find the 
names of Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril of Jeru¬ 
salem, Epiphanius, Apollinarius, Basil of Caesarea, 
Gregory of Nazianzum, Amphiloehius, Gregory of 
Nyssa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Chrysostom, and 
Cyril of Alexandria. But the limits assigned 
to this historical view make it impossible to 
produce quotations from their works, as was done 
from those of Clement and Origen. Suffice it 
then to say, that the influence of these two 
celebrated Fathers on their successors of the fourth 
century was such, that allegorical interpretation 
was very generally adopted. Among the writers 
above named, Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia, 
was the only one by whom it was entirely re¬ 
jected. By all the rest it was adopted, though in 
various degrees; the least so by Chrysostom, and 
the most so by Cyril of Alexandria. 

But beside allegorical interpretation, which has 
been sufficiently explained already, there prevailed 


488 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 


in the fourth century a kind of interpretation, 
which was called /car oikovoniav \ and in order to 
make it intelligible, this mode of interpretation 
must be illustrated by a few examples. The 
term okovofiia had been already used, and in a 
similar manner, by Clement of Alexandria 37 : it 
had been used even by Tertullian, who speaks 
of dispensatio kut o’ucovo/ul'iciv 38 . But in the fourth 
century the use of the word oiKovofxla became 
general, occasioned chiefly by the controversy 
respecting the term ofxoovcnos. To the use of 
this term an objection was drawn from what 
our Saviour had said about the day of judgement: 

7r epl ri/s ij/uepas eKeiviys, rj Trj<s copas, ouSeis diSev, 
ov$e ot ayyeXoi o\ ev ovpavw , ovSe 6 i/loy, et /x/} o 

TvaTYjp 39 . To this argument the answer was, that 
the words of our Saviour must there be under- 


37 In his Stromata, Lib. vi. c. 15. (p. 802. ed. Potter]) 
speaking of St. Paul, he says, to?? nrao-i irdvra ylyveaOat 
wpoXdyei Kara ov/XTrepKpopdv, <rul£u)v ra tcvpia rwv hoy/j-drcov, Yva 
iravr a? Kephrja^. And he adds, yj/evarai rolvvv tm oi/ti, ou% ol 
avuTrepKpepofjLevoi Si* ohcovoplav <r(art\pia^ f ov S’ ol irepi nva rwv 
ev fiepei <T<paXXop.evoi y ctAA.’ ol efe ra Kvpaarara TrapaTr'nrrovre^. 
In these passages the terms (rv/xirepiepopa and oiKovofxla have 
evidently a similar meaning. 

38 Adv. Praxeam, c. 2. It is used also by Marcus Antoninus, 
Lib. xi. c. 18. (p. 330. ed. Gataker): and the following ex* 
planation is given in the editor’s note. Kaf oiKovoptav fieri 
aliquid dicitur, cum aliud quidpiam specie tenus geritur, 
quam quod vel intenditur vel revera subest. 

39 Mark xiii. 32. .. , 



LECTURE XI. 


489 


stood kclt oiKovonlav, or oUovoiuuKtos. Thus Cyril 
of Alexandria, in reference to the passage just 
quoted from St. Mark’s Gospel, says, tjv ayvoeiv 
ecprjorev oiKovofiiKw ^ 0 . After a few lines, he adds, 

tovto yap ecrrlv airo^eyeaQai Trjs oiKOVopias tov 
Tpoirov. And again he says, oiKovop.fi yap toi 
Xpicrros p.rj eiSevai Xeycov rrjv wpav eKelvrjv 41 . Chry- 
sostom, referring to certain passages of Scripture, 
says, airep airavra ayvoias pri/iara riv' aXX ovk 
ayvowv Tavra eXeyev 3 aXX’ olkovo/xwv ra avrco nrpe- 
7rovra 4 ~. And Basil says, oiKOVOpel $ia rrjv arjv 
acrOevelav 43 . 


In the Latin Church the principal writers 
of the fourth century were Arnobius, Lactantius, 
Ambrose of Milan, Hilary, Jerom, and Augustine. 
Arnobius was a decided adversary of allegorical 
interpretation, as appears from the quotations 
given in a former Lecture. But it was not 
rejected by Lactantius, who found a proof of the 


40 Tom. V. p. 218. ed. Lutetiae, 1638. 

41 Ibid. p. 223. 

42 Homil. 78. in Matthaeum, Tom. I. p. 819- ed. Ducaei 
Lutetiae, 1633. 

43 Epist. CXLI. Tom. III. p. 929. ed. Paris, 1618. The 
term olnovo/ua is applied also to other purposes. For instance, 
Chrysostom, in his 45th Homily on the Acts of the Apostles, 
(T. III. p. 403.) applies it to the conduct of St. Paul, Acts 
xxi. 26. In short it was no less useful, than the modern term 
Accommodation. 



490 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

Millennium in the first chapter of Genesis 44 . 
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, a man of great au¬ 
thority in the Latin Church, was a decided 
advocate of mystical interpretation 45 . Of Hilary 
it is unnecessary to say more, than that he was 
equally attached to mystical meanings. Jerom 
was highly gifted, as an interpreter of Scripture. 
He was perfectly acquainted with Hebrew, as 
well as with Greek, and could read therefore 
the whole of the Scriptures in their original lan¬ 
guages, which very few of the Greek Fathers, 
and none other of the Latin Fathers could. He 
possessed therefore the advantages, which were 
necessary for a grammatical interpretation of 
Scripture, of which he also professed himself an 
advocate. But he has not unfrequently fallen 
into the error, which he condemned in Origen 46 . 
In his Commentary on Nahum, he admits that 
he is sometimes compelled to take a middle course 


44 Institut. Lib. vii. c. 14. 

45 His notions of biblical interpretation may be collected 
from the following passages: Omnis Scriptura divina vel 
naturalis, vel mystica, vel moralis est. T. I. p. 777 . ed. 
Benedict. Litera, quae occidit, mentitur, spiritus, qui vivificat, 
verus est lb. p. 1206 . Mysticus sermo ccelestium Scripturarum 
sicut panis est, qui confirmat cor hominis, velut fortior cibus 
verbi. Ib. p. 1138. His love for mystical meanings is ex¬ 
plained by his Benedictine editors in a Note p. 974 . on the 
supposition of his attachment to Philo. 

48 His objection to Origen, quod ita allegorizet ut historic 
auferat veritatem, has been noted in a former Lecture. 



LECTURE XI. 


491 


between historical (that is grammatical) and alle¬ 
gorical interpretation 47 . But whoever departs at 
all from grammatical interpretation, must approxi¬ 
mate to some kind of allegorical interpretation. 
Augustine, whose opinions became authority in 
the Latin Church, has, in his treatise De doctrina 
Christiana, given rules for the interpretation of 
Scripture. That which relates to grammatical 
and allegorical (or as he terms it figurative) inter¬ 
pretation, is given in the following words: Iste 
omnino modus est, ut quicquid in sermone divino 
neque ad morum honestatem, neque ad fidei 
veritatem proprie referri potest, figuratum esse 
cognoscas 48 . 

But Augustine, like Tertullian, appeals also 
to a Regula fidei. In the second chapter of the 
same hook, he says, that where any man doubts 
the sense of Scripture, consulat Regulam fidei, 
quam de scripturarum planioribus locis et ecclesiae 
authoritate suscepit. But though Augustine here 
adds Ecclesiae authoritas, we must not conclude 
that his Regula fidei rested on any other founda¬ 
tion than that of Scripture. His third book opens 
with these words: Homo timens Deum volun- 


47 Necessitate compellor, quasi inter saxa et scopulos, immi- 
nente naufragio, inter historiam et allegoriam orationis meae 
cursum flectere. Tom. III. p. 1568. ed. Martianay. 

48 De doctrina Christiana, Lib. hi. c. 10. 



492 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

tatem ejus in Scripturis Sanctis diligenter in- 
quirit. The will of God therefore, according to 
Augustine, must he sought in Holy Scripture: 
and in what he added about the authority of 
the Church he meant only an authority, to de¬ 
termine the sense of Scripture , which in con¬ 
troversies of faith is claimed by every Church. 
He affords no support to the Romish doctrine of 
Tradition, as an authority independent of Scrip¬ 
ture. And even were it true, that a Doctrina 
tradita existed, the discrepancies, which prevailed 
among the Fathers of the four first centuries, 
would show the uncertainty of the vehicle, by 
which it is supposed to have been conveyed. 



LECTURE XII. 


A whole Lecture having been already em¬ 
ployed in explaining the principles of interpreta¬ 
tion adopted by the Fathers of the four first 
centuries, our historical view must now be con¬ 
ducted on a narrower scale, and in a summary 
manner; otherwise I shall greatly exceed the plan 
originally proposed. Nor does the history of 
biblical interpretation require that minuteness of 
research in the subsequent ages of Christianity, 
which is necessary for a right understanding of 
the earlier Fathers. 

In the fifth century, the most distinguished 
among the writers of the Greek Church were 
Euthalius, Theodoret, and Isidore of Pelusium 1 . 
Euthalius so far contributed to the interpretation 
of the Acts and the Epistles of St. Paul, that 
he made the references to them more easy. As 
Eusebius had divided the Gospels into Ke(pa\aia, 


1 Some of the Fathers, mentioned in the preceding Lecture, 
as having lived in the fourth century, are referred also to the 
fifth century, because they continued to live in that age. 



494 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

Euthalius did the same with the Acts and the 
Epistles. And the division into o-Tt^ot, as it 
marked the pauses, determined frequently the 
sense. Theodoret wrote Commentaries both on 
the Old and on the New Testament. Like 
Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia, he took 
great pains in the investigation of the literal 
sense: but this did not prevent him from the 
adoption of allegorical interpretation. The same 
observations apply to Isidore of Pelusium. 

Andreas, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, 
wrote at the beginning of the sixth century, 
a Commentary on the Apocalypse, which abounds 
with mystical meanings. But his Commentary 
is of some use in the Criticism of the Bible, 
because it is accompanied with the text. To 
the Commentary of Andreas is commonly added 
that of Arethas, who was likewise Bishop of 
Caesarea in Cappadocia, though some authors refer 
him to a later age than the sixth century. In 
this century, as original commentators began to 
decrease, it became the fashion in the Greek 
Church, to make collections from former commen¬ 
taries, and to arrange them under the portions 
of Scripture to which they belonged. These col¬ 
lections acquired afterwards the name of 'Eeipal 
or Catenae, in which the individual writers were 
considered as so many links. Hence we have 


LECTURE XII. 


495 


a Catena Patrum in Genesin, a Catena Patrum 
in Exodum, &c. a Catena Patrum in Matthaeum, 
a Catena Patrum in Marcum, &c. For a further 
account of these Catenae Patrum I must refer 
the reader to Fabricii Bibliotheca Graeca 2 . 

From the end of the sixth to the middle 
of the eighth century, the only Greek commentator 
of any note was Johannes Damascenus. In the 
ninth century we find Photius, Patriarch of Con¬ 
stantinople, whose writings, however, as far as 
we know them, contain but little of biblical in¬ 
terpretation. In the tenth century, (Ecumenius, 
Bishop of Tricca in Thessaly, wrote a Commentary 
on the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of 
St. Paul, and the Catholic Epistles. But the 
remarks are taken chiefly from Chrysostom, Cyril, 
and other preceding writers. In the eleventh cen¬ 
tury Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, wrote 
Commentaries on the four Gospels, the Acts of 
the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Paul. He 
wrote also Commentaries on some of the minor 
prophets. The works of Theophylact were held 
in high estimation by the Greek Church: nor 
were they the less regarded, because his principal 
guide was Chrysostom, for whom the European 
Greeks have ever entertained the most profound 


2 Vol. VIII. p. 637—700. ed. Harlem 



496 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

veneration. In the twelfth century, Euthymius 
Zigabenus, a Greek monk at Constantinople, who 
composed a work called Panoplia dogmatica, wrote 
also Commentaries on the Psalms, the Gospels 
and the Epistles. Matthiii, who first published 
the Greek text of Euthymius on the four Gospels 3 , 
very highly extols his author, as an accurate 
and judicious interpreter. And here we must 
close the catalogue of Greek writers, who have 
contributed to the illustration of the Bible. 

To the Commentators who have been men¬ 
tioned by name, may be added the unknown 
authors of the Greek Scholia, which are found 
in the margins of many Greek manuscripts, and 
of which the most copious collection is given in 
Matthai’s edition of the Greek Testament. Nor 
must we omit, in a history of interpretation, the 
Greek Glossaries, especially those of Hesychius 
and Suidas. 

Let us now return to the Latin Church, 
and consider what progress was made in the 
interpretation of Scripture after the fourth cen¬ 
tury. In the fifth century we find Tychonius, 
Vincentius Lirinensis, Eucherius, Gennadius; 
and in the sixth century Cassiodorius, Facundus, 


3 Printed at Leipzig in 1792 . 



LECTURE XII. 


497 


Vigilius Tapsensis, Fulgentius, Primasius, Ju- 
nilius, Isidore of Seville, and Gregory the 
Great. But it would be a waste of time to 
examine their writings in the expectation of 
finding any thing useful for the interpretation 
of the Bible 4 . The original languages of Scrip¬ 
ture were unknown to them, grammatical in¬ 
terpretation was consequently disregarded, and 
mystical meanings were adopted without controul. 
Indeed the West of Europe from the end of 
the fifth century was, partly from the devastation 
occasioned by the Goths, and other northern 
tribes, partly from the operation of other causes, 
immersed in barbarism of every description. Pope 
Gregory the Great, who laid the foundation of 
that power, which his successors exercised with 
unlimited sway, employed his authority, not for 
the promotion, but for the suppression, of learn¬ 
ing. He became indeed an interpreter of Scrip¬ 
ture, taking Augustine for his principal guide: 
and he acquired all the celebrity, which might 
be expected from the darkness of the age, and 
the situation which he held. 

The seventh century produced no biblical 
commentator in the Latin Church: nor did Italy 


4 If any exception were made, it would be in favour of 
Cassiodorius (sometimes called Cassiodorus) and Isidore 
of Seville. 

I i 



498 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

produce a biblical commentator during many ages. 
But in the eighth century England produced 
those distinguished writers, Bede, and Alcuin; 
and Germany Rabanus Maurus. Bede, a native 
of Wearmouth in Durham, where he chiefly re¬ 
ceived his education, was a prodigy of learning 
for the age in which he lived. His Commentaries 
were indeed Commentaries on the Latin Vulgate; 
and were principally derived from the works of 
Ambrose, Jerom, Augustine, and Gregory the 
Great 5 . But his good sense, and sound judge¬ 
ment induced him to adhere, especially in the 
New Testament, as much as possible to literal 
interpretation, though it must be admitted that 
he has sometimes deviated into mystical meanings 6 . 
Alcuin, a native of Yorkshire 7 , obtained such 


5 In his Epistle to Bishop Acca (Bedse Opp. Tom. V. 
p. 215. ed. Colon. 1612.) he says, Aggregatis hinc inde quasi 
insignissimis ac dignissimis tanti muneris artificibus, opusculis 
Patrum, quid B. Ambrosius, quid Augustinus, quid denique 
Gregorius vigilantissimus (juxta suum nomen) nostras gentis 
Apostolus, quid Hieronymus sacrae interpres historiae, &c. 
This Epistle is prefixed to his Exposition of St. Luke’s Gospel, 
and relates to that Gospel especially. But if he had recourse 
to those authorities in one Gospel, he hardly neglected them 
elsewhere. 

6 In Le Long Bibliotheca Sacra, Tom. I. p. 420. ed. Paris, 
1723. an Anglo-Saxon version of the whole Bible is ascribed 
to Bede. But whether that part of the Anglo-Saxon version 
which has been printed, is a part of Bede’s translation, is 
uncertain. 

7 Some writers assert, that Alcuin was a disciple of Bede ; 
but there does not appear to be any authority for that 
assertion. 



LECTURE XII. 


499 


celebrity in his native country, that having been 
sent on an embassy to Charlemagne by Offa 
king of Mercia, he was invited to fix his resi¬ 
dence at the emperor’s court, where he remained 
till his retirement to the Abbey of St. Martin 
at Tours. His works contain various remarks 
on Scripture. But like those of Bede, they were 
chiefly taken from former writers. Rabanus 
Maurus, born at Mayntz in 776, was a disciple 
of Alcuin, and successively became Abbot of 
Fulda, and Archbishop of Mayntz. He is said 
to have been acquainted with Hebrew and Greek: 
but his Commentaries were Commentaries on 
the Latin Bible. The four-fold sense of Scrip¬ 
ture, which was adopted by many Latin writers 
on the supposed authority of Origen 8 , whose 
works they could read in the translation of 
Rufinus, is maintained by Rabanus Maurus, 
whose authority, both on account of his learning, 
and of his high rank, was so great in the ninth 
and following centuries, that his sentiments on 
biblical interpretation are entitled to particular 
notice. At the end of the fifth volume of his 
works, which were published at Cologne in 1626, 
he has a treatise entitled Allegorise in universam 
sacram scripturam. In this treatise he says, 


8 That Origen has afforded no real authority for that 
fanciful division has been shewn in the preceding Lecture. 

I I 2 



500 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 


Quisquis ad sacrae scripturae notitiam desiderat 
pervenire, prius diligenter considered quando 
historice , quando allegorice , quando anagogice , 
quando tropologice suam narrationem contexat. 
Has namque quatuor intelligentias, videlicet, 
historiam, allegoriam, tropologiam, anagogiam, 
quatuor matris sapientiae filias vocamus. He adds. 
Mater quippe Sapientia per hos adoptionis filios 
pascit, conferens insipientibus atque teneris potum 
in lacte historice , in fide autem proficientibus 
cibum in pane allegorice , bonis vero et strenue 
operantibus, et operibus bonis insudantibus satie- 
tatem in refectione tropologice , illis denique qui 
ab imis per contemptum terrenorum suspensi, et 
ad summa per coeleste desiderium sunt provecti, 
sobriam theories contemplationis ebrietatem in 
vino anagogice. 

In the ninth century Walafrid Strabo, a dis¬ 
ciple of Rabanus Maurus, a Monk in the Abbey 
of Fulda, and afterwards Abbot of Reichenau, 
compiled a Commentary on the Bible, which was 
subsequently called Glossa ordinaria 9 , on account 
of its general adoption. No other Commentator 
of the ninth century is worthy of notice, except 
Druthmar, a monk of Corbie, who wrote a Com- 


9 It must be distinguished from the Glossa interlinearis, 
which was compiled by Anselm in the twelfth century. 




LECTURE XII. 


501 


mentary on St. Matthew. Being well acquainted 
with the original, he was better qualified than 
most other Latin writers, to investigate the 
grammatical sense: and, as he forms a remarkable 
exception to the then prevailing taste for spiritual 
meanings, I will quote his own words on the 
subject 10 . Studui plus historicum sensum sequi 
quam spiritalem, quia irrationabile mihi videtur 
spiritalem intelligentiam in libro aliquo quaerere, 
et historicam penitus ignorare, quum historia 
fundamentum omnis intelligentiae est, et ipsa 
primitus quaerenda et amplexanda, et sine ipsa 
perfecte ad aliam non possit transiri. 

The tenth and eleventh centuries produced 
no commentator in the West of Europe, that 
is worthy of notice. In the twelfth century the 
most distinguished writer was Petrus Lombardus, 
who from the work which he composed acquired 
the title of Magister Sententiarum. He wrote 
observations on the Epistles of St. Paul, which 
were chiefly taken from Jerom and Augustine. 
But he was less celebrated as an interpreter of 
Scripture, than he was as a scholastic Divine. In 
the thirteenth century we find Thomas Aquinas, 


10 They are contained in his Prologue to St. Matthew, 
which is printed in the Maxima bibliotheca veterum patrum. 
Tom. XV. p. 86. 





502 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

another eminent scholastic Divine, who thence 
acquired the title of Doctor Angelicus. But 
he contributed little to the interpretation of the 
Bible ; as all that he wrote for that purpose 
was chiefly copied from Augustine. In the same 
century we find Hugo de St. Caro, who adopted 
the four-fold interpretation of Scripture. He com¬ 
posed also a Concordance, and divided the Vulgate 
into the chapters which are now in use. In 
the same century we find also Albertus Magnus, 
and Bonaventura. The former, who was Bishop 
of Batisbon, attempted to unite the Aristotelian 
philosophy 11 with an allegorical interpretation of 
the Bible. The latter, who acquired the title of 
Doctor Seraphicus, was a Cardinal, and Bishop 
of Alba. He was both a mystic, and a scholastic 
Divine. In his treatise de profunditate sacrse 
Scripture 12 , he says, Ilabet sacra Scriptura pro- 
funditatem, quae consistit in multiplicitate mysti- 
carum intelligentiarum. He then adopts the four 
usual senses, of which in his Commentary on the 
twenty-third Psalm 13 , he finds an emblem in the 
four feet of the table mentioned in the fifth verse. 
But he afterwards proceeded to a seven-fold sense. 


11 During the middle ages Aristotle was read in a Latin 
translation, which had been made from an Arabic translation 
of the Greek. 

12 Bonaventura.* Opp. Tom. VI. p. 7. ed. Moguntiae, 1609. 

13 Ibid. Tom. I. p. 96. 



LECTURE XII. 


503 


by an addition of the symbolical, the synech- 
dochical, and the hyperbolical; having remarked 
in his annotations on the Apocalypse, that the 
Book with the seven seals in the fifth chapter 
was emblematical of the Bible with seven senses. 

Here it may be proper to notice the general 
effects of the scholastic theology on the inter¬ 
pretation of the Bible. This species of theology, 
which embraced all the subtleties of Dialectics 
or Logic, derived its appellation from the cir¬ 
cumstance, that during the middle ages it served 
as the groundwork of theological disputations in 
the public schools of the Universities. A theology 
which could establish points of doctrine by the 
aid of dialectics, necessarily tended to bring the 
Bible into disuse: and the Church of Borne 
derived advantage from the substitution of dia¬ 
lectics, in proportion as doctrines were introduced, 
which had no support in the Bible. Thus, when 
Berengarius and his followers denied the doctrine 
of Transubstantiation, they were silenced by argu¬ 
ments derived from the scholastic theology. Not¬ 
withstanding therefore the celebrity of Petrus Lom- 
bardus, Duns Scotus, and Thomas Aquinas, and 
notwithstanding the acumen, which was confessedly 
shewn in the disputations of the scholastic Divines, 
it must be allowed, that their theology impeded, 
both the use, and the understanding of the 


504 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

Bible. An attempt therefore was made toward 
the close of the twelfth century to counteract 
these effects. But though the persons, who made 
it, appealed only to the Bible in proof of doctrine, 
they went into the opposite extreme, and rejected 
the literal sense of Scripture altogether. From 
the passage in the Latin Vulgate, litera occidit, 
spiritus vivificat, they argued to the interpretation 
of the Bible. Hence they acquired the appellation 
of Mystics: and the mischief, which they did by 
the perversion of Scripture, was equalled only 
by the mischief, which had been done by the 
neglect of it. At length Albert and Bonaventura, 
at the end of the thirteenth century, united, as 
we have already seen, the subtleties of one system 
with the fancies of the other, and produced a 
compound, which was in no respect advantageous 
to the interpretation of the Bible. 

While the Scriptures were thus perverted by 
men acquainted only with the Latin translation 
of them, there existed in the south of Spain 
many learned Jews, who devoted their attention 
to the study of the Hebrew Bible. The south 
of Spain was then occupied by the Moors, who 
spake a dialect of the Arabic, which was then 
used in the north of Africa from the Red Sea 
to the Atlantic. And as Arabic was then the 
language of learning, the south of Spain became 


LECTURE XII. 


505 


the seat of Oriental literature in the twelfth 
century. It will be sufficient to mention the 
names of Aben Ezra, David Kimchi, and Moses 
Maimonides, whose writings contributed to the 
diffusion of Hebrew learning in the rest of 
Europe. 

In the fourteenth century Nicolaus Lyranus, 
a native of Normandy, but supposed to have 
been of Jewish origin, was among all the Christ¬ 
ian interpreters, who either preceded him, or 
lived at the same time with him, the most dis¬ 
tinguished for his knowledge of Hebrew. His 
principal work was entitled Postillae perpetuae, 
seu brevia commentaria in universa biblia. But 
he retained the four-fold division in the inter¬ 
pretation of Scripture, which was then in com¬ 
mon use. The fourteenth century was likewise 
distinguished by the attempts, which were made 
both in England and in Germany, to make the 
Bible known to the people at large. The Anglo- 
saxon version had long ceased to be understood 
in England: nor was Ottfried’s German trans¬ 
lation any longer intelligible in that country. 
Wicliff therefore undertook in the latter half 
of the fourteenth century to translate the Bible 
into English: and about the same period trans¬ 
lations were made into the German language. 
It is true, that these translations were nothing 


506 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

more than translations from the Latin Vulgate. 
But they opened the Scriptures to the common 
people, who had long been kept in darkness: 
and their anxiety to gain access to the Bible 
was evinced by the fact, that those German 
translations were among the earliest books, which 
were printed by Fust and Schaeffer 14 . 

The fifteenth century prepared the way for 
the study of the Bible in its original languages. 
At the beginning of that century Manuel Chry- 
soloras taught Greek in Italy: and the fall of 
the Greek empire about the middle of that cen¬ 
tury brought Theodoras Gaza, Georgius Trape- 
zuntius, Bessarion, Demetrius Chalcondylas , 15 
Cons tantinus Lascaris, and other distinguished 
Greek scholars into the west of Europe. Before 
the close of that century, the study of the Greek 
and Latin Classics began to revive in Italy; and 
the taste, which was thereby acquired, contri¬ 
buted to dispel the barbarism of the middle 
ages. In the same century the Hebrew lan¬ 
guage, which had taken root in Spain, began 

14 A German translation of the Bible was printed in 1462, 
a second in 1466, a third in 1467 ; and seven more were 
published before the close of that century. See Walch, Bib¬ 
liotheca theologica, T. IV. p. 77* 78. 

15 Dr. Thomas Linacre, one of the earliest Greek scholars 
in England, was taught at Florence by Demetrius Chal¬ 
condylas. 



LECTURE XII. 


507 


to spread itself into other parts of Europe. To 
these advantages was added in the same cen¬ 
tury the important invention of printing by 
moveable types. In 1488 the whole Hebrew 
Bible was printed at Soncino in Italy: 16 and 
other editions soon followed. The learned Jews, 
who had been invited to superintend those editions, 
soon propagated a knowledge of Hebrew not only 
through Italy, but into the adjacent countries 
of Germany and France. Though numerous 
editions, containing either the whole, or parts, 
of the Hebrew Bible were printed in the fifteenth 
century, no part of the Greek Testament was 
printed in that age. But Laurentius Valla, a 
noble and learned Roman, who wrote about the 
middle of that century, procured manuscripts of 
the Greek Testament 17 , of which many were 
then brought into the west of Europe. He wrote 
annotations on various passages of the New Tes¬ 
tament, which, as might be expected from his 
taste and judgement, were grammatical 18 . 

At the beginning of the sixteenth century 


16 The Hebrew Psalms had been printed so early as 
the year 1477- 

17 In his note to Matth. xxvii. 22. he says, Tres codices 
latinos, et totidem graecos habeo, quum haec compono, et non- 
nunquam alios codices consulo. 

18 They were afterwards printed by Erasmus in 1504. 



508 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

that highly-gifted scholar Erasmus prepared the 
first edition of the Greek Testament 19 , accom¬ 
panied with a new Latin translation, and with 
valuable annotations, in which the grammatical 
sense was again the chief object of inquiry 20 . 
In the year following, namely in 1517? Luther 
commenced the Reformation in Germany: and 
in 1522 he published his German translation 
of the Greek Testament. Like Erasmus he was 
a decided advocate of grammatical interpretation, 
which was ably defended by Melanchthon. The 
Greek of the New Testament was interpreted 
like the Greek of a classic author: the tropolo- 
gical and anagogical senses which had been 
ascribed to the Latin Vulgate, disappeared: and 
the names themselves ceased to occupy a place 
in the nomenclature of a biblical interpreter. 
It became a maxim among Protestants, that the 
words of Scripture had only one sense, and that 
they who ascribed to them various senses made 
the meaning of Scripture altogether uncertain. 
It is true that a propensity to mystical mean¬ 
ings, to which fanatics of every description are 
invariably attached, has displayed itself at various 


19 It was published in 1516. The volume of the Complu- 
tensian Polyglott, containing the Greek Testament, bears 
the date of 1514: but it was not published till 1522. 

20 He published also paraphrases on the books of the 
New Testament, which long continued to be in high repute. 



LECTURE XII. 


509 


times and in various places, even in Protestant 
countries. But such a manifold interpretation 
of Scripture was then the exception, and not 
the rule, as it had been in the middle ages. 
The great majority of Protestant Commentators, 
especially they, whose commentaries have been 
employed on the original languages of Scripture, 
have made it their chief object to discover the 
grammatical or literal sense. 

In the sixteenth century, beside Erasmus, 
Luther, and Melanchthon, who have been al¬ 
ready mentioned, we find Camerarius, Osiander, 
Chemnitz, Calixt, Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin, Beza, 
Isaac Casaubon, Drusius, Scaliger, and other 
eminent writers, who were advocates of a single 
sense, to be determined by a grammatical investi¬ 
gation of each word 21 . In the seventeenth century 
we find J. and L. Capellus, Frederic Spanheim, 
Louis de Dieu, Pricaeus, Lightfoot, Arminius, 
Grotius, Episcopius, Le Clerc, and other eminent 
writers, who were again advocates of a single sense, 
and literal interpretation. But toward the close 
of that century an effort was made by Cocceius 
at Leyden, and by some German Divines at 


21 It would have been fortunate, if they who agreed in the 
opinion, that Scripture had only one sense, could have further 
agreed in adopting one and the same sense. 



510 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

Berlin and Halle, to restore the manifold inter* 
pretation of Scripture, which the Reformation 
had banished. During a period of many years 
their efforts were attended with success: but 
good sense, and good taste gradually restored the 
Scriptures to the same mode of interpretation, 
which is applied to classic authors. And, with 
a few exceptions, which it is unnecessary to men¬ 
tion, the same kind of interpretation has con¬ 
tinued to prevail. Here then I will conclude, 
without further remarks, the historical view of 
the modes, which have been adopted in the 
interpretation of Scripture, from the earliest ages 
of Christianity to the present day 22 . 


22 If to the preceding historical view an account were 
added of the various Commentaries on the Bible, it would be 
necessary to prepare another volume. Walch has described 
the Commentaries, which have been written in various lan¬ 
guages, either on the whole or on parts of the Bible, from the 
time of Luther to the year 1765: and that description fills more 
than four hundred and fifty pages of large octavo*. Nor 
would less than an hundred pages be requisite, for a continua¬ 
tion of it to the present time. It is true, that a selection might 
be made. But a small selection out of so vast a number would 
be a difficult, as well as an invidious task: nor would it be 
easy, where the limits are necessarily circumscribed, to find 
a fair and equitable rule , by which the admission or rejection 
of authors should be determined. It must be further observed, 
that an account of writings explanatory of the Bible, should 
contain, not only Commentaries or Scholia, but also works, 
which illustrate the languages of the Bible, the geography. 


Bibliotheca Theologica, Tom, IV. p. 451—854. 



LECTURE XII. 


511 


chronology, and history of the Bible: and such works are no 
less numerous than important. I must refer therefore to the 
Bibliotheca Theologica for the works, which were published 
before the year 1765. Bishop Cleaver’s Catalogue contains 
many which were published between that time and the year 
1800. But the most complete and best arranged catalogue of 
theological books to the year 1800, is that which was published 
by Dr. Noesselt, Professor of Divinity at Halle. Though it 
is written in German*, yet as the titles of all the books are 
given in their original languages, and there is a good index, 
even they, who are unacquainted with German, may learn 
from it the names of the authors and the subjects of their 
works. Since the year 1800, the explanations of the Bible, 
which have been published abroad, are not generally such, as 
would recommend themselves to an English Divine: and 
those which have been published during that period in 
England are generally known. 

* The German title is Anweisung zur Kenntniss der besten allgemeinen 
Buchern in alien Theilen der Theologie. The edition, published in 1800, 
was the fourth. 



• ✓ 

. 

_ 








. 





APPENDIX 


CONTAINING 

Observations relative to the second Lecture on the Inter¬ 
pretation of the Bible. 

-♦- 


As the avowed object of that Lecture was to recommend 
the study of the Scriptures in the original languages, and 
the remarks which were made on our English translations 
were introduced only for the purpose of promoting that 
desirable object, I did not expect, that those remarks would 
be selected as matter of special animadversion. And I 
was the less prepared for such an attack, because I spake 
of our authorised version in terms of the highest possible 
respect. To understand the mode, in which the King's 
Bible, that is, our present authorised version, was formed, 
let us again consider the Rules, which were given by King 
James to the learned editors. The first Rule was “ The 
Ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the 
Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the 
original would permit.” Another Rule was. The transla¬ 
tions of Tyndal, Matthewe, Coverdale, Whitchurch and 
Geneva to be used when they come closer to the original 
than the Bishops’ Bible. It is evident therefore that the 
King’s Bible, so far from being a new translation, was a com¬ 
pilation from former translations. Indeed this is asserted 
by the learned editors themselves, who declared that they 


a 



2 


APPENDIX. 


did not think to make a new translation, but to make out of 
many good ones, one principal good one 1 . But though the 
King’s Bible was a compilation from former English Bibles, 
and especially from the Bishops’ Bible, it was a com¬ 
pilation founded on a collation of them with the original 
Scriptures. For, as the first Rule was to alter the Bishops’ 
Bible as little as the original would permit, the Rule 
necessarily implied a collation of it with the original. In 
like manner the other Rule, which was applicable where 
the Bishops’ Bible did not accord with the original, and 
directed that in such cases other translations should be fol¬ 
lowed which did accord with the original, implies a collation 
of those translations. This was a much more effectual mode 
of producing a good translation, than the making of a trans¬ 
lation altogether new and independent of former translations. 
Of the collation thus made by order of James I. I said, 
“ As this collation was made by some of the most distin- 
“ guished scholars in the age of James the First, it is pro- 
iC bable, that our authorised version is as faithful a repre- 
“ sentation of the original Scriptures as could have been 
“ formed at that period 2 .” 

When an author has thus solemnly recorded his opinion 
on a particular subject, it is not usual, nor is it fair contro¬ 
versy, to draw inferences from other passages, in opposition 
to the author’s direct and positive assertions. When I had 


1. Their own words, which I copy from the original edition of 1611 
are the following. “ Truly, good Christian Reader, w r ee never thought 
“ from the beginning that wee should neede to make a new translation, 
“ nor yet to make of a bad one a good one (for then the imputation of 
“ Sixtus would be true in some sorte. See.) but to make a good one 
“ better, or of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be 
“ excepted against: that hath been our endeavour, that our marke.” 

2. See p.297. of this edition, or Part III. p. 35. of the second edition. 



APPENDIX. 


3 


represented our authorised version as being as faithful a 
representation of the original Scriptures as could then be 
formed, I did not expect that any adversary, however zealous, 
would endeavour to shew, that I represented the same ver¬ 
sion as a ft " compilation of second-hand translations.” That 
the reader may understand the process, by which this extra¬ 
ordinary charge is brought out, it is necessary to repeat the 
following facts. Tyndal was the first Englishman who pro¬ 
fessed to translate from the original languages of Scripture 3 . 
He translated the New Testament, the Pentateuch, other his¬ 
torical books, and the prophet Jonah. The books which 
Tyndal left untranslated were translated, either by Rogers, 
or by Coverdale, or partly by one partly by the other: and 
the whole Bible thus translated was published under the 
superintendence of Rogers, but under the feigned name of 
Matthewe, in 1537* most probably at Hamburg, though as 
some say at Marburg 4 . Now Cranmer’s Bible was a correc¬ 
tion of Matthewe 5 s Bible: the Bishops 5 Bible was a revision 
of Cranmer’s Bible; and the Bishops 5 Bible formed the 


3. WicliflPs translation was avowedly nothing more than a translation 
from the Latin Vulgate. 

4. As the purpose, for which I introduced the short account of our 
English translations, required only a summary statement, it could not be 
expected, that I should enter into a discussion of the disputed points of 
Matthewe’s Bible. I followed therefore Johnson, who has been fol¬ 
lowed also by Dr. Gray, and represented Matthewe’s Bible as printed 
at Hamburg, and containing the translations of Tyndal and Rogers. I still 
think that this is the most probable opinion: but if any one prefers 
Marburg (or Malborow as corruptly written) to Hamburg, or thinks 
that Rogers was nothing more than a corrector of the press, instead of 
being a partaker also in the translation, I shall enter into no dispute on 
those matters. But I have thought it right to alter an expression respect¬ 
ing Matthewe’s Bible, namely that Coverdale’s Bible was subsequent to 
it. Coverdale’s translation was certainly subsequent to many parts 
of the translation contained in Matthewe’s Bible. But as Coverdale’s 
edition preceded that of Matthewe, I have altered “ subsequent editions” 
to “ other editions.” See p. 296. 

a2 



4 


APPENDIX. 


basis of the King's Bible, that is our present authorised ver¬ 
sion. So far therefore as Matthewe’s Bible contained trans¬ 
lations by Tyndal, so far the mode in which Tyndal translated 
may be supposed to affect our authorised version. I am told 
that I “ may be understood to mean that the older English 
versions were derived from Luther and the Vulgate.” Now 
the remarks which I made on the early English translations, 
were, in reference either to Luther or to the Vulgate, con¬ 
fined to the translation of Tyndal. And were it true , that 
I had represented Tyndal’s translation, as nothing more 
than a translation, either from the Vulgate or from Luther, 
were it true even, that I had represented the older transla¬ 
tions generally as mere second-hand translations, it would 
still be a false inference, that I had thereby represented 
our authorised version as a “ compilation of second-hand 
“ translations.” A compilation it undoubtedly was, but a 
compilation, as I have already stated, which was founded on 
a collation with the original. I further stated, and stated in the 
Lecture, that “ this collation was made by some of the most 
“ distinguished scholars in the age of James the First,” and on 
this fact I founded the assertion, that it was “ as faithful a repre- 
<e sentation of the origmal Scriptures as could have been formed 
“ at that period.” My recommendation of a revision of it was 
founded on the critical apparatus, and the means of interpre¬ 
tation which have been acquired since that period 5 . 

p .3 

Having shewn the fallacy of the inference respecting the 
authorised version, I will proceed to the consideration of 
what I said respecting Tyndal’s translation. And as I must 


5. See p. 297. In recommending a revision of the authorised version 
I have the satisfaction to agree with Archbishop Seeker, Archbishop 
Newcome, Bishop Lowth, Dr. Waterland, Dr. Kennicott, Dr. White 
(Professor of Hebrew at Oxford) and many other eminent Divines of 
the Established Church. 



APPENDIX. 


5 


beg to be judged by my own words, I will quote what I said 
at p.296. (PartHI. p. 33. 2d ed.) respecting the assistance 
which Tyndal derived from Luther. “ We may conclude 
ci therefore that Tyndal’s translation was taken at least in 
“ part from Luther’sand this conclusion is further con- 
cs firmed by the Germanisms which it contains, some of 
(< which are still preserved in our authorised version.” Such 
was the conclusion to which I came, with respect to Tyndal 
and Luther: and as I am answerable for the accuracy of 
this conclusion, I will give additional arguments in support 
of it. 

To conduct the inquiry with precision, let us confine our¬ 
selves in the first instance to the New Testament. Though 
Luther’s German version contains the whole Bible, he began 
with the translation of the New Testament 6 , which he pub¬ 
lished in 1522. Tyndal likewise began his biblical trans¬ 
lations with the New Testament, which he printed in 1526. 
No one can suppose therefore that Luther’s New Testament 
was unknown to Tyndal, when he made his own transla¬ 
tion ; especially as Tyndal, like other English Reformers of 
that age, went into Saxony and became personally acquainted 
with Luther. Anglia relicta in Germaniam transivit, et in 
Saxonia cum Martino Luthero et Johanne Fritho, populari 
suo, sermonem contulit 7 . 


6. Luther printed in 1517 a few Psalms, which were called Busse- 
Psalmen. But these were taken from a Latin translation of the Psalmi 
poenitentiales made by Reuchlin, and were never considered as a part of 
Luther’s German Version of the Bible, a version which he professed to 
make from the original languages of Scripture- 

7. Frelieri Theatrum, p. 109. Rogers, who published the Bible called 
Matthewe’s Bible, not only resided some time in Saxony, but acquired 
such a knowledge of German, that he became a beneficed Clergyman in 
that country, and was even invested vvith the dignity of Superintendent, 
an office nearly corresponding to that of Archdeacon in our own Church. 



6 


APPENDIX. 


And that he acquired a knowledge of the German 
language appears from his “ Prologe to the Epistle of 
saint Paule to the Romayns,” which is chiefly a translation 
from a Preface to that Epistle by Luther. Since then it is 
evident that Luther’s New Testament was not only known to 
Tyndal, but that he was able to use it, few persons would 
be disposed to doubt that he did use it. Where a translation 
so highly, and so justly esteemed as that of Luther already 
existed, a subsequent translator would shew more vanity 
than wisdom, if he attempted to give a new translation, 
which should be altogether independent of the former. 
Nothing can be more absurd than to consider the indepen¬ 
dence of a translation as a recommendation of it. Most 
persons will give me credit for a knowledge of German: 
yet when I translated the Introduction of Michaelis from 
the fourth edition, I was not too proud to consult an 
English translation, which had been made from the first 
edition. And whenever the first translator had used a word, 
which I thought preferable to the word, which occured to 
me, I always adopted the former translation. It is true, 
that in all such places the independence of my translation 
was destroyed; but what it lost in independence, it gained 
in correctness. If indeed a translator professes to give 
nothing more throughout his whole book, than the trans¬ 
lation of a translation, like Wickliff’s translation from the 
Latin Vulgate, no question can arise about dependence or 
independence. Such a translation is no where a translation 
from the Original. But I have never asserted, and I have 
never meant, that Tyndal’s New Testament was a mere 
translation from the German of Luther. I have no doubt 
that when Tyndal made his translation of the New Testa¬ 
ment, he translated with the Greek original lying before 
him; for however limited his knowledge of Hebrew might 
be, he had the reputation of being a good Greek scholar. 


APPENDIX. 


7 

But I have likewise no doubt that he made considerable 
use of Luther’s New Testament: and will now proceed to 
the proof. 

Though Tyndal has no where acknowledged his obliga¬ 
tions to Luther, no argument can be drawn from his 
silence on that subject. For he is equally silent on the 
“ Prologe to the Romayns,” which was unquestionably taken 
from Luther 8 . And every one who has compared Luther’s 
New Testament with that of Tyndal, must have perceived 
how closely in other respects the former was followed by 
the latter. Luther, who is known to have disliked the 
Epistle of St. James removed it from its usual place at the 
head of the Catholic Epistles, and placed it immediately 
before the Epistle of St. Jude. In this singular transposition 
he was followed by Tyndal, in whose translation, as well 
as in that of Luther, the Epistle of St. James is the sixth 
of the Catholic Epistles. Again the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
which usually follows the Epistle to Philemon, as the four¬ 
teenth of St. Paul’s Epistles, was transferred by Luther to 
the Catholic Epistles, and placed immediately after the third 


8. He was so surrounded by enemies, and exposed to such dangers, 
that he was probably afraid to mention the nam6 of Luther. Coverdale 
on the other hand, though he does not mention Luther’s name, evidently 
alludes to his translation. In the Preface entitled “■ Myles Coverdale 
unto the Christen Reader” he says of the English Bible, which he 
published in 1535. “ To helpe me herein I have had sondrye transla- 
“ cions, not only in Latyn but also of the Douche interpreters, whom, 
“ because of theyr singuler gyftes and speciall diligence in the Bible 
“ I have been the more glad to followe for the most parte, according 
“ as I was required.” The word “Douche” is not here confined to the 
sense which is now ascribed to the word “ Dutch.” It then included 
the German language, which is called “ Deutch” to this very day by 
the Germans themselves. There cannot be a doubt therefore that 
Coverdale had Luther’s German translation in view, when he said that 
he was glad to follow “ the Douche interpreters—because of their singuler 
“ gyftes and speciall diligence in the Bible.” 



8 


APPENDIX. 


Epistle of St. John. In Tyndal’s New Testament the 
Epistle to the Hebrews is likewise placed immediately after 
the third Epistle of St. John. At other times Luther has 
made alterations with regard to the Chapters. For instance 
the first sentence of Mark ix. was made by Luther the last 
sentence of Mark viii. And so it was by Tyndal. Again the 
first sentence of 1 Cor. xi. was made by Luther the last 
sentence of ch. x. And so it was by Tyndal. In another 
place Luther has carried two sentences forward, having re¬ 
moved the two last sentences of 1 Cor. i. to the beginning 
of ch. ii. The same transfer took place in Tyndal’s New 
Testament. Again, the three last sentences of Heb. iv. were 
transferred by Luther to the beginning of eh. v. And 
Tyndal did the same. Now if the singular coincidences 
mentioned in this paragraph do not establish the fact, that 
Tyndal used Luther’s New Testament, it will be difficult 
to afford a proof of any thing. 

I will now give some examples, to shew the manner in 
which Tyndal’s mode of translating was influenced by 
Luther’s German Version. Luther thus begins the first 
chapter of St. Matthew, “ Dis ist das Buch von der Geburt 
Jesu Christi,” though there is nothing in the Greek cor¬ 
responding to Dis ist. And Tyndal in like manner begins 
with “ This is the boke, &c.” Matth. ii. 18. (pcovn ev *P apa 
rtKovaOri is translated by Luther, Auf dem Gebiirge hat 
man ein Geschrey gehort. Instead therefore of taking 
Rama for the name of a city, as it is commonly understood 
both in Matth. ii. 18. and Jeremiah xxxi. 15. he had recourse 
to the Hebrew JIDT as an appellative , and translated it 
Gebiirge. In like manner Tyndal, instead of Rama as a 
proper name has used the word “ hilles,” and translated 
the passage “on the hilles was a voice harde.” He has 
here followed Luther with the greatest exactness: for 


APPENDIX. 


9 


Gebiirge though a noun singular has a plural sense, and 
signifies not a single hill, but an assemblage of hills, whence 
lyndal has “hilles” in the plural. He agrees also with 
Luther in the arrangement of the words. Matth. iv. 25. aVo 
FaAiAa/a? feat AeKct7rd\e(i)<; is translated by Luther 'aus 
Galilaa aus den zehn Stadten :’ and in this passage Tyndal 
has “from Galilee and from the ten cities .” Matth. viii. 
18. eneXevcrev aireXOeTv e<? to irep.av is translated by Luther 
f hiess er hiniiber jenseits des Meers fahren,’ though there 
is no word in the Greek corresponding to des Meers. Yet 
Tyndal agrees with Luther, and has “ he commanded to 
go over the water.” Matth. xi. 18. laipoviov e^ei is rendered 
by Luther 'Er hat den Teufel/ and by Tyndal “He haeth 
the deuyll.” Matth. xiii. 10. Start iv 7 rapaj3o\a?<! AaAets avrots 
is rendered by Tyndal “ Why speakest thou to them in 
parables:” but Ver. 13. Sta' tovto ev irapa(3o\di<s aurots AaAw 
he translates “ Therefore speak I to them in similitudes.” 
Here Luther’s translation is f Darum rede ich zu ihnen in 
Gleichnissen,’ with which Tyndal agrees even in the struc¬ 
ture of the sentence. 

These examples, which have been collected from a cursory 
inspection of a few Chapters in St. Matthew, might easily 
be multiplied, if the fact that Tyndal used Luther’s Version 
required further proof. As in these examples Tyndal agrees 
with Luther, where Luther deviates from the Greek, 
they afford abundant evidence of the connexion between 
Luther and Tyndal. On the other hand, where both of 
them agree with the Greek, we can draw no inference 
either for or against the connexion between the two trans¬ 
lators. If a later translator agrees with a former translator, 
and at the same time agrees with his original, the effect 
may have been produced, either with or without the operation 
of the first translator. Both translators may have rightly 


10 


APPENDIX. 


understood the words of the original, and thus mutually 
agree though they translated independently of each other. 
On the other hand, it is equally possible, that in those very 
places the later translator consulted the -former, and that 
their agreement was caused by this very circumstance. 
Nothing therefore can be more fallacious than to quote 
examples of agreement between a translation and its original, 
when the question is in agitation, whether a former trans¬ 
lation has been used or not. For this reason I have selected 
only examples, where the translators agree with each other, 
though each of them differs from the Greek. 

Having now established the fact ee that Tyndal’s trans¬ 
lation was taken in part from that of Luther,” I will pro¬ 
ceed to the other fact that Tyndal adopted Germanisms , some 
of which are still retained in our authorised version. 

It cannot appear extraordinary, if an English translator, 
who followed Luther so closely as Tyndal did, should 
occasionally adopt a German idiom. Now there is nothing 
which more distinguishes the structure of the German from 
that of the English language, than the position of the nomi¬ 
native case and verb in affirmative sentences. To make this 
intelligible to an English reader, and at the same time to 
contrast the English with the German idiom, let us take 
some familiar English example, for instance “ I rode yester¬ 
day from Cambridge to Huntingdon,” which might be 
expressed in German by * Ich ritt gestern von Cambridge 
nach Huntingdon. But if Gestern be placed at the beginning 
of the sentence, the German idiom requires, that the nomi¬ 
native be put after the verb, though the sentence is not 
interrogatory, but affirmative. A German therefore would say 
Gestern ritt ich von Cambridge nach Huntingdon, though an 
Englishman, if he began the sentence with yesterday, would 


APPENDIX. 


11 


still say “Yesterday I rode, &c.” And if he said “ Yester¬ 
day rode I from Cambridge to Huntingdon,” he would use 
a Germanism. 

Now there are many such Germanisms in our English 
Bible, though their deviation from the common English style 
is generally overlooked, because we are accustomed to them 
from our childhood. One example has been already given 
from Matth. xiii. 13. Btct toi/to ev iraprcifioAcu*: cruTots ActAw, 
which most English translators would render “therefore 
I speak to them in parables.” But Luther’s German trans¬ 
lation is f Darum rede ick zu ihnen in Gleichnissen,’ and 
hence Tyndal s translation is “ Therefore speak I to them, &c.” 
which is still retained in the King’s Bible. 1 Cor. vii. 12. 
roT? Be AoiTrot? eyco Aeyoo, is rendered by Luther “ den andern 
sage ich.” Hence Tyndal has ‘ speak /,’ which is retained 
in the Kings Bible. 1 Cor. vii. 17* ua\ outcos ev tccI? euKAt]- 
<ri'ai *? 7raVai? Btcrrctcrcrofxcu , would be translated into common 
English “and so I order in all the churches.” But Luther, 
as the German idiom requires, places the nominative after 
the Verb, and translates * Und also schaffe ich/ whence 
Tyndal has “ so order Coverdale has so “orden I,” and 
hence our present reading “so ordain I 9 .” Other examples 
which originated in Tyndal’s translation, and were trans¬ 
ferred to the King’s Bible, are 1 Cor. ix. 22. To the weak 
became I. -xii. 31. and yet shew I. 2 Cor. vii. 13. exceed¬ 

ingly the more joyed we. xi. 24. Of the Jews five times 


9. Tyndal has in this passage another very remarkable agreement 
with Luther, who translates ev ra?s iKKAtjcri'ais tt daais ‘ in alien 
Gemeinen.’ Now Gemeinen signifies ‘congregations/ and this is the word 
which is used by Tyndal. Nor is this remark to be confined to one 
passage. Gemeine is the usual translation of euKArjaia in Luther's 
New Testament: and * congregacion’ is the usual translation of it by 
Tyndal. 




12 


APPENDIX. 


received I. 1 Thess. ii. 13. for this cause also thank we. 
Heb. v. 8. yet learned he. James i. 18. of his own will begat 
he. 1 John i. 3. ‘That which we have seen and heard declare 
we.’ These examples, to which many more might be added, 
are sufficient to establish the fact, that there are Germanisms 
in our authorised version. In the examples, which I have 
selected, the verbs are all principal verbs: for even in Eng¬ 
lish the pronoun nominative sometimes follows auxiliary 
verbs, even where no question is asked. There are likewise 
some principal verbs, as saith, quoth, &c. which precede 
their nominatives; and there are some constructions which 
it is not easy to define, where the nominative may be 
placed after the verb in affirmations. But the examples, 
which I have selected do not appear to be warranted 
by the common usage of the English language: and, 
as they are in perfect accordance with the structure of 
the German language, they may be fairly ascribed to the 
circumstance, that Tyndal translated under the influence of 
the German idiom 10 . 

Having proved the assertions for which alone I am an¬ 
swerable, and having conducted the proof by an inquiry only 
into the New Testament, it is the less necessary to say much 
about the Old Testament, where Tyndal was in greater need 
of assistance, than he was in his translation of the New Tes- 


10. Though the examples which I have quoted from the authorised 
version are all in Tyndal’s translation, there is a considerable number in 
the latter, which are not in the former. For instance in 1 Cor. vii. there 
are six examples in Tyndal’s New Testament, but only two in the King’s 
Bible. The other four had been gradually altered, and probably be¬ 
cause their deviation from the English idiom was observed. Indeed the 
number was much diminished in Coverdale’s Bible, and still more in 
Cranmer’s Bible, and in the Bishops’ Bible. It is probable that not a 
fourth part now remains of those, which were adopted by Tyndal. 



APPENDIX. 


13 


tament. I said in the second Lecture on the Interpretation 
of the Bible 11 , “What knowledge Tyndal had of Hebrew 
“is unknown:” and that we really know very little on the 
subject appears from the great variety of opinions which 
are entertained on it. Johnson says that Tyndal had 
“ little or no skill in the Hebrew.” A similar opinion 
is adopted by Archbishop Newcome who says that Tyn- 
dal’s “ skill in Hebrew was not considerable.” Dr. Gray 
also in his Introduction says of Tyndal that “he had but 
“ little knowledge of the Hebrew.” On the other hand 
Tyndal’s Prologue to the Gospel of St. Matthew, in which 
he mentions some peculiarities in Hebrew construction has 
been considered as an argument for his proficiency in that 
language. Now a very moderate proficiency in Hebrew 
would have enabled Tyndal to make those remarks. And 
however well he might have known the rules of Hebrew 
construction , he could not translate without previously learning 
the meaning of the Hebrew words. When Hebrew learn-^ 
ing was introduced among the Christians of Europe, the 
meaning of Hebrew words was learnt by consulting the 
Vulgate, and seeing how they were translated by Jerom. 
The Rabbinical glossaries, and especially the Hebrew Roots 
of David Kimchi, formed the basis of the first Hebrew 
dictionaries: but those Rabbinical glossaries contained no 
Latin translation of the Hebrew words. When Sebastian 
Munster composed his Dictionarium Hebraicum, he added 
to each Hebrew word the sense in Latin. And whence 
did he derive those Latin senses? From the Vulgate. Wolf 
in his Historia Lexicorum Hebraicorum, p. 87- says of 
Munster, Idem vulgatam versionem in vertendis Hebraicis 


11. Page 29G. or Part III. p.33. of the second edition. 




14 


APPENDIX. 


vocibus expressit 12 . Luther, wjio was a contemporary of 
Munster, learnt also the meaning of Hebrew words, by see¬ 
ing how they were translated in the Vulgate. Tyndal, who 
translated no book either of the Old or of the New Testa¬ 
ment, which had not been previously translated by Luther, 
had the choice of consulting Luther or Jerom. The use 
which he made of Luther’s version in the New Testament, 
renders it probable that he made a similar use of it in the 
Old Testament 13 . And this inference is confirmed by a com¬ 
parison of the two translations: for Tyndal agrees with Lu¬ 
ther even where Luther deviates from the Hebrew. Nothing 
can be more emphatical than the Hebrew words 

.TW), and no translator, who was duly attentive to 
his original, and was writing in a language which had a de¬ 
finite article, would omit that article. Hence the Septuagint 


12. Among the Hebrew scholars of that age no one had so little depend- 
ance on the Vulgate as Santes Pagninus. But then he had the means of learn¬ 
ing the senses of Hebrew words, which were not possessed by Hebrew scho¬ 
lars in general. He was not only well acquainted with Arabic, which is con¬ 
sidered as a key to the Hebrew, but he had constant intercourse with those 
learned Jews, who resided in the North of Italy at the end of the fifteenth 
and the beginning of the sixteenth centuries, superintending editions of the 
Hebrew Bible. Those learned Jews were to Pagninus a living Lexicon: 
and hence he acquired an attachment to Rabbinical senses, which induced 
him to depart from the Vulgate, even where it was quite unnecessary. 

13. Tyndal’s agreement with Luther in the arrangement of certain books 
of the New Testament has been already noticed. There is an instance of 
the same kind in the Old Testament. It is difficult to assign a reason, 
why a translator of the Old Testament should begin his translation of the 
prophetical books, with that of the prophet Jonah. And it is still more 
difficult to explain why two translators should act in the same manner, 
unless the latter was influenced by the former. Now Jonah was the first 
of the prophetical books, which Luther selected for translation; and it 
was the first if not the only prophetical book, which Tyndal translated. 
According to Lewis, p.72. Tyndal’s translation of Jonah was published 
about 1631. 



APPENDIX. 


15 


has tou ovpavov Ka\ rtju <yfjv. The article is likewise used by 
Aquila, by Symmachus, and by Theodotion. As the Hebrew 
emphasis could not be expressed in Latin, the Vulgate has sim¬ 
ply ccelum et terram. But as the German language has both 
an indefinite and a definite article, a translation correspond¬ 
ing to those Hebrew words would be ‘ den Himmel, und die 
Erde: But Luther, whether he attended to the Vulgate more 
than to the Hebrew, or whether influenced by some other 
cause, gave the following translation of Gen. i. 1. f Im Anfang 
schuff Gott Himmel und Erde/ In like manner TyndaFs 
translation is “In the beginnyng God created heaven 
“ and erth 14 /’ In the latter part of the second verse the 
Hebrew words are nsmn dv6n mn mnn ' 22 -by "fern 
D'Dn *02"^ where which signifies super faciem oc- 

curs twice 15 . But in Luther’s translation there is no word 
for *03 in either place. His translation is * Es war finster 
auf der Tiefe, und der Geist Gottes schwebte auf dem Wasser/ 
Here Tyndal’s translatibn is “ darknesse was upon the depe, 
“ and the Spirite of God moved upon the water 16 .” At 
verse 5. the Hebrew is "IITN DP 'IpD \T1 \T1 which is 

literally f et fuit vespera et fuit mane dies unus/ But Luther’s 
translation is f Da ward aus Abend und Morgen der erste Tag/ 


14. It is unnecessary to observe, that the article is supplied in the 
King’s Bible. Indeed it was supplied already in the Bishops’ Bible. 

15. Aquila and Symmachus have in both cases eV't TrpoaooTrov : 
Theodotion in both cases eVi Trpo(ru>Trov : the Septuagint simply eiravto. 
l'he Vulgate has super faciem in the first place, but not in the second. 

16. Likewise the Bishops’ Bible has “ darknesse was upon the deepe, 
“ and the Spirit of God mooved upon the waters.” But there are two 
marginal annotations referring to “deepe” and to “waters,” signifying 
that the Hebrew expresses ‘ the face of the deep/ and ‘ the face of the 
waters.’ In the King’s Bible this marginal reading was taken into the 
text. 



16 


APPENDIX. 


In like manner Tyndal's translation is “ so of the evenyng and 
“ mornyng was made the first day.” The same translation is 
observed in all the other places, where this expression occurs. 
In the Hebrew D'D 1 ? D’O i'3 at verse 6. the word D'D 
(waters) occurs twice. Hence the Septuagint has avapeaov vSa- 
7*09 ica'i vSaroK* Aquila ixera^v vhcti-wv ek vtara, Symmachus 
ev fiecru) vdaTos icai ek udwp, Theodotion dva/ULetrov i/Saro? ek 
vBara, and the Vulgate ‘ aquas ab aquis/ Yet notwith¬ 
standing this repetition of the word in all these translations, 
as well as in the original, Luther has used the word only 

once; and Tyndal has done the same. 

' . V 1 \ 

It is unnecessary to say more in vindication of the re¬ 
marks, which I made on Tyndal’s translation. And I should 
have thought it unnecessary to say even so much, if a re¬ 
publication of those remarks had not afforded a fit opportu¬ 
nity of so doing. 














* o 



o v 




o, *•••« a <*\ */^7* .<j* xa> 'o.T* A <* ♦ 

^O e © " «* *<$• ^ # t » # *^V ^ c 0 “ ® * *<J> 

*\ k «5os\\\r\^L * t'. _ VJ + Jjp’fi!//^-, - « «5sx\\\n'^. + *7 

^ 4*^ o * «£>. _4 K JnAm&C^k ^ ^ 




o iy Tj, 

«. * • 'TZ/y/iu«gr iy * 

A° 0 %. *••’*’ ^ C %, '* 

o r »i*°» v- v s>s <• 

* 44 6^4 -^ • 4ft. ♦ *P 4 A * 



• »# 


c j0 "A. 

i v * '-tz/y/nj<ar k\~ hi 

.o '’V "’* «? I 
<7 > v 



4- >° "V . 

* A ' 

-4 A> S.k'£% *- 

* ♦ 

- ^S 5 V4 

* ^ ^ 'oWW** ^ V *V . 

«>•** ^ <r, ^7..’ xF o. *o.i* A **T77* 

b, vj> .i*«. ’b. 

* ^ 4 *^ * *r. 


<x» <<. * 

♦ ^ 0 *>QS^> - ^ 

< V °4* * • • • ^ 

v *^L'* ^ dr ***■ 

o ^ A ♦VGKV. <6 A* 

vv :m 5^: Vsr 

a 



0_ A>' o °.* # ♦. -C^ .o'- 1 ** %> j& *0"°* "<* 



v , v^V* v 

. b- y siate- % j? *m % ^ -‘ 

° V^ v « v^ v ° 

4* ^ ^ ^ «.v 

y ^ -o*** a ^ O??;* ^ -o.» 

■ >. n' ♦ * • * * <5 «^ * o fc ® ^ ^4 ft> # i**4 

„ *V x C o ^ • e s5^v^% ^ G ^ 4 


O ^T*‘ -C^ ^ 

Cr *•*-** ^c 


54 C,^ ' J vP4 ° 

* V 5 ^ ° 






4 °o 

o iO vG. - 

c ^ **» e ° a, 0 ^ **»'•• 4 '*-® 

^ 4 . & .(y # * • Oj, "y 4> • * * * £v (\V i . Cj 

• ^ ^ .VvV/k*. ^ ^ ^ ' 

. .-■ _ _ „- _.t v^ v vr'v 

V^ j d -G ^r, o vyWr^ywf * 4 «V»\ 

**. '«•'-* A <v' <4 '•^Ti-' ^ ^ *'f7r• ‘ a «* ♦v-rr.* 

°o A .°^*- .0^ r'LL' O A *JJL°*.\ 

* - -< .v^kv. ^ A i°- ^ ,*^v. ■%>/ 






° r •%. 

•* ft0 v‘*Trr.’ .^‘- j 

., . ... .**<>, v> A s * • /. 

A ^ • ^V* C.^ ♦ «M 

■ ^ ^ :Ma. v^ 

8 ci^ * .\V*\ 

* <>? <£>■ o V J9R.\N * A^ v V*. 

C* *^T* <G^ v2, "o • * 4 *C* ^ 

qV ^ ^ # # *» 4 ^ 0 © * 0 # Treatment Date: May 2005 

r. •^o ? :£MQt : ^ 

O * l\ £• * K V Cranberry Township, PA 16066 

^ .. 0 ^k # *»® 9 -0 ^ 

4 • V '4 o 


•^* Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 

<*4 *, Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 


’ s> 


4S°^ 




* ^ PreservationTechnologies 

* *3 A 

r h * 

4 V ^ 

<V . * * © 44 A *>.«•• 


A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 


(724) 779-2111 





^ a^/V** 4 '<?• *.s38P* 4 «# ^ “™‘ ^ ^ • 

*■>..* A <A *T^7T* A* As, '•.»* A <A -<. 

♦ 0 °. ° ♦ t • 1 '• ♦ ^ o -C ° " V. * * ’***£ 

— *" y ^ t^TSAVk^v # •j'j 





I ,A • 

*b i 

$v „ 5,0 '•SSR* “'^Itsy * 

* - AXNM//Ao , v<^ “f if 1 ^ : ■ «« . v<r • 



^ *• # A 'Cn o V^wVvC* * ■» >lltMgip ° c5> ^ ° ^ 

<$> ^ v'^Cvv <y ^ %*2Sfevv ^ . 

<* # *tvT* A* ^ *<>. * * A <„ ♦TJtT* \b - 

>« r{^ • *■ 1 * ♦ *^0 < v o 0 ** ® ♦ <J> rv^ • w 1 • ♦ ( 

*0 v o u ♦WZfeC. ^ .<* ^ c 


^5 


0 


oV , 

> ^y-i* 4 °** 

■•%*> \^-'\^ e V 4 -^*'*? 

** ' £$$&' % & ^id\ % a* • dSfeh** ^ ^ * 

^ *^ 5 l 55 ll^- o'v Vv ° «^Pfes * »o C? m 

Jk O VvA&cSS * aV^k * ® A '■Cn ° W/A^^sSi • 


__ _ , vPC, 

r* :rn^* a^’'^ • aV'^> 

As «.,7* A <- *<Tv7* ,G V AS. '•..* A <■ *•> 

:a^’* ; 4 ». ^ 

>.* iP^ ^o* ^pvv -j^m; a 




* A °t. 


. „ „„„ _. a t "•* *%:TO^i^'» <> ?► Ai-. *~c^wr-. .«. 

^ '*.,,*'* ^ °o * 4 *^* / y> 

t«0 # ^ A G>. .0^ V’ 1 * 



• V" >v- 

■*£> v 4 : 


AA. 

at -> .4^ ^ •-. 

.k vt%«* .Cr c>, ^«.** A 

‘ V ^ % A . 4 ^.\ 




^ O A VV *■ * A ^ ° Jp ” ^ 

► » v V^>. * ^yy/lhaY*' v» „ ^Hkli\\vxSk> ‘ ^ y. * 

* ,0° U ‘^V? % ^3^* aO 0 V ' 



HECKMAN 

BINDERY INC. 




AUG 90 


N. MANCHESTER, 
INDIANA 46962 


^0 o j0 'TV v ' 
.0 ^ ^ * 


^ '*'’* V A 

; Sgm°. X<? f 

♦ A > v\ • k A*? AA jj 

x V ^ o^WNTl <L^ • 

A ♦7 wrj ^7* r.v \b 

A s „0«., *5>.'"' A° .i*.. 

?*^K' At-o* .eywz<to< 

“‘ , * 










































































